Hi @microworlds ,
I am Matej, the lead engineer on a team working on the mechanism of paid actors. First of all, thanks for the report, we always appreciate feedback and try to improve the product as much as possible.
Explanation of your case
As @Zuzka (Apify) wrote, pay-per-result actors are still quite a new feature of our platform, and we had a bug in how the profits for pay-per-result actors (which both of your actors are) are displayed. Namely, what you saw as profit for both actors yesterday was actually revenue considering all users (i.e. paying and free). I checked the data and indeed, that value was around $18 for your Jumia scraper (ggs0SemoD6cE4gjdaggs0SemoD6cE4gjda) and around $200 for your Twitter scraper (heLL6fUofdPgRXZieheLL6fUofdPgRXZie) as of yesterday. However, correctly, the profit is computed as revenue - cost (cost is underlying platform usage of the runs, revenue what users pay for results), and only paying users are considered (i.e. those with Apify subscriptions).
Yesterday during the day (sometimes during the afternoon), a fix for the bug was deployed and that's why both those numbers fell down, Jumia to $0 and Twitter to $117. These numbers are the right ones using the correct logic, as explained above. They should also correspond to what you see in the daily overview of profits (as per Zuzka's last screenshot) - just bear in mind you need to select paying users in the chart if you want to see the actual amount you will be entitled to at the end of the month.
I hope this explanation makes sense and I apologize for showing the wrong information beforehand, and hope it didn't cause you too much inconvenience.