The lowest observed cost per deposit came from Telegram Mini Apps: $43.57. That is the most useful finding from this iGaming account: Web Push delivered most of the tracked volume and all three repeat-deposit events, while Telegram Mini Apps delivered deposit events (L2) at the lowest observed cost.
Across six campaigns, $1,902.90 in spend generated 2,327 registrations (L1), 20 deposits (L2) and 3 repeat deposits (L3). Separating these stages gives a much clearer basis for budget decisions than one blended conversion count.
What L1, L2 and L3 mean
- L1 — Registration: a user registers an account.
- L2 — Deposit: a user makes a deposit.
- L3 — Repeat deposit: a user deposits again.
These are the advertiser’s configured postback events. Each level is reported separately: a registration is not a deposit, and repeat deposits are counted at L3.
The account at a glance
| Setting | Detail |
|---|---|
| Vertical | iGaming / betting |
| Formats | Web Push, In-Page Push and Telegram Mini Apps |
| Scope | Six campaigns, anonymized as A–F |
| Reporting window | August 20–October 2, 2026; cutoff 13:27:16 UTC |
| Spend | $1,902.90 |
| Impressions | 346,531,853 |
| Clicks | 550,617 |
| L1 — registrations | 2,327 |
| L2 — deposits | 20 |
| L3 — repeat deposits | 3 |
The current figures were checked against Adexium’s production reporting data. The advertiser’s identity and campaign identifiers are omitted.
First, make outcomes visible
The account team’s earlier report, covering March 26–August 19, showed $1,916.83 in spend and 462,135 clicks, with no conversions recorded in the dashboard. The source account notes describe conversion tracking as not yet connected.
The advertiser then integrated server-to-server postbacks with Adexium’s help. Campaign reporting could now show outcomes at each configured conversion level, including repeat deposits.
The earlier zero is a tracking gap, not evidence that nobody converted. The two reporting windows also have different lengths, so comparing their total spend does not establish an improvement in acquisition efficiency.
Six campaigns, three conversion levels
Each cost below is campaign spend divided by the count at that specific level. A dash means no event at that level was recorded during the reporting window.
| Campaign / format | Spend | L1: registrations | L2: deposits | L3: repeat deposits | Cost / registration | Cost / deposit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A — Web Push | $981.49 | 1,749 | 10 | 3 | $0.56 | $98.15 |
| B — In-Page Push | $335.67 | 338 | 4 | 0 | $0.99 | $83.92 |
| C — Web Push, Portuguese | $207.72 | 132 | 2 | 0 | $1.57 | $103.86 |
| D — Telegram Mini Apps | $174.27 | 75 | 4 | 0 | $2.32 | $43.57 |
| E — In-Page Push | $105.49 | 13 | 0 | 0 | $8.11 | — |
| F — Web Push | $98.25 | 20 | 0 | 0 | $4.91 | — |
| Total | $1,902.90 | 2,327 | 20 | 3 | $0.82 | $95.15 |
Totals and cost calculations use unrounded spend. Displayed row amounts may differ from the total by one cent due to rounding.
Web Push supplied volume and the repeat-deposit signal
Campaign A accounted for 75.2% of registrations (L1), 50% of deposit events (L2) and all three repeat-deposit events (L3), using 51.6% of total spend. It combined the cheapest L1 cost with evidence of activity deeper in the funnel.
That makes it a candidate for a controlled budget increase. The next decision should depend on the cost and value of additional downstream events, rather than preserving its $0.56 L1 headline at any cost.
Mini Apps changed the ranking at L2
Campaign D’s cost per registration (L1) was $2.32, compared with Campaign A’s $0.56. Looking only at L1 would make Mini Apps appear substantially less attractive.
At L2, the ranking reversed: $43.57 for Mini Apps versus $98.15 for Campaign A. Mini Apps produced 20% of the account’s deposit events (L2) on 9.2% of its spend.
Only four deposit events (L2) support that Mini Apps result. It warrants a bounded follow-up test, not a claim that this format will always outperform Push. No L3 event was recorded for the Mini Apps campaign in this window.
Portuguese targeting produced a segment to investigate
The account team introduced Portuguese-language targeting with Brazil as a focus. Campaign C recorded 132 registrations (L1) and 2 deposit events (L2) on $207.72 in spend.
Its $103.86 cost per deposit (L2) gives the team a starting benchmark for testing creatives and traffic sources. These are campaign-wide results, not a Brazil-only breakdown or a controlled measurement of the uplift caused by language targeting.
Two campaigns consumed budget without a deeper event
Campaigns E and F spent $203.74 combined, or 10.7% of the account’s spend, and generated 33 registrations (L1) with no recorded L2 or repeat-deposit events (L3).
That makes them the first candidates for a tracking, source and creative review before further spending. Moving their budget elsewhere is an experiment: the current data does not guarantee that another campaign can absorb it at the same acquisition cost.
Why the conversion total needed a closer look
The account’s supplied dashboard snapshot showed 2,345 conversions. Its stage breakdown was 2,322 L1 + 20 L2 + 3 L3. That number mixed three different events; it was not 2,345 deposits or 2,345 distinct customers.
The later database cutoff used in this article contains 2,350 total events: 2,327 L1 + 20 L2 + 3 L3. The five additional events are all L1. Spend also increased from the snapshot’s $1,896.80 to $1,902.90.
A blended cost per event obscures what the advertiser is actually buying. In this account, the overall cost per registration (L1) was $0.82, while the overall cost per deposit (L2) was $95.15. The distinction changes which campaigns deserve the next test budget.
A practical plan for the next budget cycle
- Keep the three levels visible in every campaign review. Report registrations (L1), deposits (L2) and repeat deposits (L3) separately, and reconcile postbacks with the advertiser’s own records.
- Give Campaign D a bounded expansion test. Its low observed L2 cost is promising, but four events are a small sample. Set a spend limit and evaluate new events separately from this baseline.
- Scale Campaign A in measured steps. It has the strongest volume and the only recorded repeat-deposit activity. Watch marginal L2 cost and subsequent L3 activity by source as reach expands.
- Continue Campaign B and Portuguese Campaign C as separate tests. Compare GEOs, creatives and sources within each campaign; do not infer language uplift from the campaign total.
- Hold additional budget for E and F until reviewed. Check delivery, postback coverage and time to conversion before deciding whether to pause or rebuild their weakest segments.
These are recommendations based on the observed funnel, not changes already made or results already achieved.
What the numbers establish
Postback tracking made it possible to distinguish registrations at L1, deposit acquisition cost at L2 and repeat deposits at L3. The resulting campaign ranking is more useful than either click volume or a combined conversion total.
The counts are recorded events within the reporting window, not unique people or a matched acquisition cohort. L3 does not establish how many distinct customers deposited again, and ratios between levels should not be read as cohort retention. Deposit amounts and revenue are outside this dataset, so it does not establish ROAS or profitability.
These results describe one advertiser and reporting window. They are not a forecast or a guarantee of future performance.
Explore Web Push, In-Page Push and Telegram Mini Apps, or start advertising with conversion tracking connected from launch.
