A new controversy has erupted surrounding Kik streamer Braden “Clavicular” after another creator publicly spoke out about the contract involving him. On March 21, 2026, a screenshot shared by user @Awk20000 on The document was originally posted by ASU fraternity leader Waris, who said the contract belonged to a girl he knows from his law class.The document immediately attracted attention because of its terms. It appears to be a three-year management deal, where a manager will control parts of a producer’s work and take a share of the earnings. Waris later reviewed the contract live on stream, explaining what he saw and why it raised concerns for him and others in the content sector.
ASU Frat Leader Heir Explains why Braden “clavicular” contract terms felt one-sided
During his livestream, Waris read parts of the contract and reacted in real time. One section mentions that the manager will have administrative or view-only access to all social media and content accounts of the creator. After reading it, Waris said, “So, this person wants my social media account that I’ve worked on for about a year and a half, and he wants to take a certain percentage of every sponsorship I get.”He continued by pointing out that the deal did not clearly state what the producer would get in return. He said, “It seems like this contract doesn’t really offer me anything other than taking a percentage of my earnings. It sounds like a slave contract, what do you think, Chat?”Payment terms are explained in another section. It states, “As compensation for Manager’s services hereunder, Talent will pay Manager a commission equal to twenty percent (20%) of Talent’s gross revenues.” Many viewers were surprised that the 20% cut could continue even after the contract expired. Responding to this, Waris said, “Even after the tenure ends, we are keeping 20% ​​of whatever I make? Chat, what is this?”Waris also shared that before collaborating with Clavicular, he and a friend were asked to sign a similar contract on March 20 in Miami. He said he refused because the terms seemed too strong. He said, “They may have said something along the lines of ‘come to us’ and tried to get us to sign this contract. We were obviously hesitant. It felt like a contract was being forced upon us.”Earlier, Clavicular had responded to criticism by saying that these agreements were standard NDAs used by public figures. However, since these details emerged, the discussion has changed, with many now questioning how such contracts are being used in streaming collaborations.
