I think this Platform is rigged (kind of)

transference/accountability issue.

The OP should be congratulated for bravely pointing out, in layman's terms, what is termed in the discipline of economics as "microtransactions".

Microtransactions are prevalent in online gaming or video games.

A microtransaction is a business model where users can purchase virtual items - such as improved weaponry or additional lives to extend game play - for small amounts of money. Microtransactions often appear in free-to-play games, meaning there is no cost to download the game, just the cost to buy the online virtual products.

Game developers have learned to take advantage of this new revenue source. Chess.com - with its army of programmers, data analysts, accountants and gaming lawyers - surely is no different in this regard.

In the case of Chess.com, the main microtransaction - purchasing Premium membership - provides you with a subtle yet incredibly useful benefit: slightly easier opponents.

Not purchasing membership, inversely, almost guarantees tougher opposition in your rating range. This includes opponents of questionable ethics e.g. sandbaggers, cheaters, smurfers, GM speed-runners, etc.

I don't understand, how does purchasing a membership lead to more fair opponents? 

it doesn't... swampy's being facetious.

Why is it so hard to understand? If you purchase a membership, the Chess.com algorithm-crunchers will pair you up with more favourable opponents. If you win more, you are more likely to play more, and more likely to renew your membership. It's a business model.

That’s not how chess even works. There are no “harder opponents”, and the work required to pull that stuff off doesn’t necessarily reflect on a good payoff. Costs > benefits. The disconnect happens on the “more favorable opponents” part.

Everything is rigged if you think they are rigged! Period!

HAHA SKILL ISSUE

ikr im so smart and mature

and also i just unsubbed from a premium membership, and my rating has stayed the same. 

That is neither logical nor true.

quite possible, but this would infer the downslide beginning at the point of abandoned lessons not with the premium cancellation. 

see points 1, 2, and the paragraph where I attribute wins to the same process in question.  sigh...

I'd like to thank the academy 

I think just about everyone is missing my point.  My theory doesn't give you easier opponents in perpetuity.  You sign up, it throws you opponents you match up well against so that you get a transient boost in rating.  Now you're operating from a slightly elevated baseline.  You attribute this increase to the lessons.  You unsubscribe, you're fed opponents you match up poorly with, your rating takes a similar transient dip, you associate slumps with not having access to the materials that gave you the previous boost.  This is basic association. 

This doesn't preclude actual, meaningful progress in the slightest.  

If you get better your rating will go up, period.

I think everyone is hung up on the word rigged which is why I added the caveat "(kind of)".  Even so, perhaps a poor choice of word.  Didn't expect everyone to get so sensitive

I'm also dumbfounded by how many ppl think this player matching scheme is some incredibly difficult process requiring insane resources and man-power.  I can analyze each one of my games for accuracy on my phone.  What I'm talking about would involve nothing more than creating a player profile of strengths and weakness and matching player A's strengths with player B's weakness.  Incredibly easy. 

As a final point I'd like to say that the premium subscription has a lot of great features and is worth the money if you use it consistently.  (mostly bc of the boost in points, obviously) 

And for those of you who only play on mobile, log in to a computer and check your insights page.  This is exactly the type of profile I'm talking about, like, exactly LOL.  

OH THE RESOURCES!

It'd be very difficult to match someone with someone else who they are probably going to lose against. There's so much randomness in chess, especially at the 1100 level where you are. It just doesn't work like that.

This is where I'm finding the problem.

How do you find someone you "match well against?"

If you say that your playstyle counters theirs - this isn't feasible. You can't even accurately classify someone's playstyle, only generally ("petrosian was a defender! Karpov was a defender! Tal sacrificed a lot!"), and even then it isn't possible to determine which playstyle counters another.

If you say that your score from previous matches was good - first of all, in the 1000s, there are a lot of people in the pool, and you generally never get matched up with the same person more than once. Even at 2300 blitz, where it thins out more, it only happens very occasionally, and because I've played many, many games at this level. So this isn't really possible either.

Right now, I can't think of any other possibilities. 

But consider this - chess.com apparently can't even add a new time control (classical) because "the way things are set up" make it difficult to implement (@martin_stahl). And if they can't add a new time control, what makes you think that the programmers can implement a lengthy algorithm that only slightly alters the playing experience of a select few?

he was being sarcastic

(isn't insight only for people with membership)

only for people with diamond membership.