5K installs hit the top grossing charts in four countries: a delisted live-streaming app came back under a new name

Mushfica Live is a stranger video-chat live-streaming app on Google Play. It launched in Oct 10 and had only about 6 installs by Nov 5,100, yet it was charting on social top grossing in Mexico, the UK, Brazil and Germany at the same time. It isn't new: a Brazilian user already said in a review that it's the same thing as Laposo Live, which was delisted in September. It gained traction by bringing back banned hosts and old paying users. That's something outsiders can't replicate and shouldn't try.

"Just like Laposo"

On 2026 Oct 20, Brazilian user Mauricio De Jesus left a five-star review on Mushfica Live's store page: "gostei do app é igual lopaso live muito bom dou 5estrelas", meaning "I like the app, it's just like Laposo Live, very good, five stars" (Google Play Brazil store, 11-06).

Laposo Live was another live-streaming app. It launched in Jul 4 and disappeared from Google Play in September. It was listed for about two months, with roughly 17K installs, 455 ratings and a 3.21 score (archived on AppBrain and Apptopia). Several of its reviews accuse people on the platform of luring and recording minors. The reason for the delisting was never disclosed. It can't be confirmed whether it was a policy ban, but the reviews make that likely (inference).

Laposo's last update was Sep 12. Mushfica's privacy policy is dated Sep 17, and it launched in Oct 10. It changed package name, developer account (Antithesis Interactive) and domain (mushfica.live), but the people are the same.

How to tell it's the same operator

Apart from the user who let it slip, four other things match:

• The website is a template. mushfica.live and Laposo's site cloud9.stream use nearly identical copy, both reading "Download it now. Your next favorite creator is probably live." Even the Google Play badge on the page is the same static file. Searching that sentence online turns up only those two sites.
• Same prices. Both apps' in-app purchases run $0.99 to $41.99 per item, and neither has ads (Google Play, Apptopia).
• The same people write reviews. Mary ann Solayao wrote "easy to earn easy withdraw" under Laposo on Aug 22, then on Oct 17 wrote under Mushfica "very easy to use, just withdrawals should be faster." JaneJayden Delarosa and Dick Tracy also reviewed on both. Dick Tracy wrote under Mushfica: "still a pedo app, pull it from the play store immediately," where "still" refers to the predecessor.
• The tone is the same. Laposo released an update roughly every 3 days, with joking release notes like "Rearranged some 1s and 0s." Mushfica's current release note is just two words: "Hocus Pocus." Neither developer name can be traced to a real person. Laposo's was "Indomethacin," the name of a drug.

5K installs, how did it get on the top charts?

Look at how slowly it grew: in Oct 21 about 3,400 installs, Oct 29 4,147, Nov 6 5,147, and then just over 1,000 in a week, around a hundred a day (Google Play install counts). It never charted on top free, only on social top grossing: 11-06 Mexico #121, UK #146, Brazil #154, Germany #168. A third-party data site recorded that on Oct 13, its 3th day live, it appeared at once on five charts in Brazil, Canada, Germany, France and the UK. On Oct 16 it reached the top 100 of France's social top grossing, and on Oct 18 the top 100 in Italy (AppInsider).

What scale do the other apps in that same ranking band operate at? On the UK social top grossing chart, ranks 110 to 153 are mostly apps with hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of installs, such as Chato 17.8M, Meli 1.5M and Suka 1.43M (Google Play, 11-06). Mushfica has the fewest installs in that band, by two or three orders of magnitude.

For it to happen, a few people must be paying. The bar for the top hundred on social top grossing in these countries is already low, so a handful of loyal users willing to buy a $41.99 diamond pack at a time is enough (inference).

Where the money comes from

The model is paid live streaming with host cash-outs, the most common format in this niche. Viewers buy diamonds, send gifts and unlock streams, and hosts can cash out the gifts they receive, with the platform taking a cut.

The reviews on both sides spell it out. A Mexican user, Susana, wrote in Oct 12: "I topped up, the diamonds don't work, I can't unlock a single stream, I want a refund." On the other side, users with Filipino names say "easy to earn" and "faster withdrawals," which are hosts taking a share. The store page rates it 17+.

The ratings look off too: 11-06 has 123 ratings in total, 84 five-star, 30 one-star, 7 four-star, and not a single two or three. From Oct 29 to Nov 6, one-star stayed around 30 while five-star rose from 59 to 84 (Google Play). An empty middle with a steady climb in five-stars usually means someone is organizing ratings, probably hosts or operators trying to push it up (inference).

Where users come from

It isn't advertising, and it isn't content. A search for its name on TikTok returns no relevant videos, nobody mentions it on X, there's no press coverage, and online it appears only on APK download sites and auto-generated data-site pages. Searches of the public Meta, TikTok and Google ad libraries found no ads for it (those libraries only track some products, so no results doesn't mean no ads).

The most plausible source is private outreach: hosts told to download a new build and bring their regular viewers along, possibly through guild or agency group chats (inference). A hundred or so new installs a day fits the scale of returning users.

Who else does the same thing

Stranger video chat with paid gifts is a mature category, and the biggest players already dominate it:

On product, Mushfica is no different from these, and the gap in scale is several orders of magnitude. What's "different" about it is how fast it moved to a new shell and brought people back, plus the paid content that reviews accuse of lax moderation. Small crews running "paid live streaming + reskin" aren't rare on Play, and some developers keep two or three similarly named live apps going at once.

If it were you

Bottom line: Don't follow it. It took off on hosts and high-spending users left behind by a banned platform, which you can't get from the outside. The part that makes money has been flagged in reviews for involving minors, and that's not a gray area; it's a hard line.

Who it's for: No one. A team that wants to build a legit live social app would be up against Bigo, Tango, and Chamet, which have agency systems and compliance review. That's not an opportunity here.

Who it's not for: Everyone, especially indie devs who want to "change the country and language and launch a live tipping app." Cold start means you need hosts first. Hosts want money and agencies. One moderation incident and the whole account is gone.

How to approach it: Don't build this app. Learn to read the charts instead: an app with only a few thousand installs that charts on Top Grossing but never on Top Free, sitting at the same rank as rivals with hundreds of thousands to millions of installs. Treat that combination as "a reskin of something removed," "carried by a few big spenders," or "content problems," not as "small and very profitable." Then check whether the ratings are split at both ends with nothing in the middle, and whether reviews name someone's earlier app.

How to get users: Not applicable. Its "acquisition" is calling back users from a removed app, and there's no public channel you could copy.

When to get in: There's no window to wait for. Repeated takedowns of reskinned apps like this are normal. Laposo was live for two months. How long Mushfica lasts depends on when Google Play next catches it.

Signs you've misread it: (1) Mushfica stays live past six months, installs climb into the hundreds of thousands, and it starts appearing on Top Free. That would mean it's pulling in genuinely new users, not just moving old ones, and the acquisition picture needs a fresh look. (2) The reason Laposo was removed is confirmed to be unrelated to policy violations (say, the developer pulled it), and the allegations in the reviews don't hold up. Then it's just a small ordinary live-social app and the risk estimate should come down. The case for following it still wouldn't hold, because the old users still can't be reached.