TOPIC: Counterfeit Token Concerns

lazlo_hollyfeld1985 wrote:

Harlax wrote:

dbradical wrote: Thoughts on solutions:
Numbering higher end tokens could help us to detect multiples in the system, helping us to keep track of numbers in circulation, but by iteself would not prevent some scale of counterfeits.

Ultimately what makes the business of counterfeit tokens profitable (preseumibly) is the fact that for many of the tokens, defacing a gold blank flint and steel and making it into a charm means a huge monitary gain and thus is worth the effort.

It is not likely that you will see many willing to sacrifice a legendary orange token to make a different one, the profit margin does not seem to be there, similarly doing the same with a ring of the elements to make a rod is also a fairly slim margin, so I do not think it likely those would be counterfeited on any profitable scale.

So the easiest solution would be to change some of the colors on the backs of some of the tokens to make the cost of counterfeiting by sacrificing one token to make another, too high.

It is a pain, because it means a effort to swap out stuff in circulation, but we will see what happens, I guess. Sounds like a busy HoosierCon is in the future...

Dave

Thank you for keeping coaches out of the loop on this.

I'm still unclear what numbering will do unless there is a check point somewhere before they can be used.

I think that changing to a different color for high value tokens is a clear winner. No one is going to munch many oranges for another orange.

Well except maybe the bracers.

i think (we)the coaches should examine the treasure enhancing tokens a little close

We were asked to do this in training this year and I'm fine with doing that for the CoA. I am concerned if we have to look at a lot of others as well.

Harlax wrote:

lazlo_hollyfeld1985 wrote:

Harlax wrote:

dbradical wrote: Thoughts on solutions:
Numbering higher end tokens could help us to detect multiples in the system, helping us to keep track of numbers in circulation, but by iteself would not prevent some scale of counterfeits.

Ultimately what makes the business of counterfeit tokens profitable (preseumibly) is the fact that for many of the tokens, defacing a gold blank flint and steel and making it into a charm means a huge monitary gain and thus is worth the effort.

It is not likely that you will see many willing to sacrifice a legendary orange token to make a different one, the profit margin does not seem to be there, similarly doing the same with a ring of the elements to make a rod is also a fairly slim margin, so I do not think it likely those would be counterfeited on any profitable scale.

So the easiest solution would be to change some of the colors on the backs of some of the tokens to make the cost of counterfeiting by sacrificing one token to make another, too high.

It is a pain, because it means a effort to swap out stuff in circulation, but we will see what happens, I guess. Sounds like a busy HoosierCon is in the future...

Dave

Thank you for keeping coaches out of the loop on this.

I'm still unclear what numbering will do unless there is a check point somewhere before they can be used.

I think that changing to a different color for high value tokens is a clear winner. No one is going to munch many oranges for another orange.

Well except maybe the bracers.

i think (we)the coaches should examine the treasure enhancing tokens a little close

We were asked to do this in training this year and I'm fine with doing that for the CoA. I am concerned if we have to look at a lot of others as well.

i look at HoP, RoR and CoGF close as well (unless i am running behind or finishing someone else's group because we are behind)

Something I thought after seeing the watermark comments was perhaps the laminate used on the token labels could have a UV watermark like they used on drivers licenses, something TDXXXX with the X's being the year printed.

This could be implemented for all tokens and could be easily checked with a UV penlight. Of course further measures could be taken at the Relic & Legendary levels as has been discussed already.

Just my .02

dbradical wrote: Thoughts on solutions:
Numbering higher end tokens could help us to detect multiples in the system, helping us to keep track of numbers in circulation, but by iteself would not prevent some scale of counterfeits.

Ultimately what makes the business of counterfeit tokens profitable (preseumibly) is the fact that for many of the tokens, defacing a gold blank flint and steel and making it into a charm means a huge monitary gain and thus is worth the effort.

It is not likely that you will see many willing to sacrifice a legendary orange token to make a different one, the profit margin does not seem to be there, similarly doing the same with a ring of the elements to make a rod is also a fairly slim margin, so I do not think it likely those would be counterfeited on any profitable scale.

So the easiest solution would be to change some of the colors on the backs of some of the tokens to make the cost of counterfeiting by sacrificing one token to make another, too high.

It is a pain, because it means a effort to swap out stuff in circulation, but we will see what happens, I guess. Sounds like a busy HoosierCon is in the future...

Dave

Eldritch items are on green tokens. Legendary items are on orange tokens. And what Dave says about sacrificing one of those items to make different isn't worthwhile is likely true in most cases. I guess changing Relics to a different color would work, perhaps blue. However, there are some Relics (+3 Mithral and Ring of Improved Evasion) which only go for as much as a UR ($100) and I could see them being sacrificed to make a different Relic, like a Charm of Avarice. So, that said, I would still suggest an Alphanumeric serial number system.

CrowOfPyke wrote: So the easiest solution would be to change some of the colors on the backs of some of the tokens to make the cost of counterfeiting by sacrificing one token to make another, too high.

This is the simplest and easiest idea. For all UR/Relics do a different back then it is prohibitive to make a good profit on most tokens. Also, Onyx R/UC/C sets would have to be removed as well.

Ed

MasterED wrote:

CrowOfPyke wrote: So the easiest solution would be to change some of the colors on the backs of some of the tokens to make the cost of counterfeiting by sacrificing one token to make another, too high.

This is the simplest and easiest idea. For all UR/Relics do a different back then it is prohibitive to make a good profit on most tokens. Also, Onyx R/UC/C sets would have to be removed as well.

Ed

why would onyx sets have to be removed

Harlax wrote:

lazlo_hollyfeld1985 wrote: i think (we)the coaches should examine the treasure enhancing tokens a little close

We were asked to do this in training this year and I'm fine with doing that for the CoA. I am concerned if we have to look at a lot of others as well.

I have my good tokens (including treasure enhancers) in binder pages. Player coaches are free to examine them (within the pages) as much as they want.

However, I would be cautious about letting someone (including player coaches) physically handle the tokens (such as to nominally inspect it). All it would take is one unethical volunteer with some sleight of hand skills to make a quick switch....

dbradical wrote: Ultimately what makes the business of counterfeit tokens profitable (preseumibly) is the fact that for many of the tokens, defacing a gold blank flint and steel and making it into a charm means a huge monitary gain and thus is worth the effort.

It is not likely that you will see many willing to sacrifice a legendary orange token to make a different one, the profit margin does not seem to be there, similarly doing the same with a ring of the elements to make a rod is also a fairly slim margin, so I do not think it likely those would be counterfeited on any profitable scale.

So the easiest solution would be to change some of the colors on the backs of some of the tokens to make the cost of counterfeiting by sacrificing one token to make another, too high.

It is a pain, because it means a effort to swap out stuff in circulation, but we will see what happens, I guess. Sounds like a busy HoosierCon is in the future...

On the Legendary level, the +4 Tamorr's Bracers are probably the least valuable. Also, this year's GT bonus room led to a lot of +5 Averon's Deathcleavers floating around. So if someone were to sacrifice an Orange, the Bracers or Deathcleaver would be the way to go. (Most valuable would probably be the Ultra Keen Slayer Bow and the Girdle).

As has been said, at the Relic level, the Ring of Improved Evasion, +3 Mithral Bracers, and +3 Rod of Niltongue all regularly trade at the value of a UR. Similarly the 4C's are now labeled as Relics, so I could see someone sacrificing a Draco-Lich Claw Charm to turn it into a more valuable relic.

And at the Eldritch level, the Boots are going to be a whole cheaper than the Ring of Supreme Elemental Command. In fact, if there is going to be some sort of exchange program thing set up, Jeff might want to get it done before the Eldritch Boots become available.

Lordoftherealm wrote: You know if Jeff only allowed each person to transmute one of each transmutable item there would be less of a market for transmuted items as people would covet them and trading them would be suspicious.

Wouldn't work.

Big token buyers would just use proxies (e.g. new players) to make those transmutables on their behalf.

Incognito wrote: As has been said, at the Relic level, the Ring of Improved Evasion, +3 Mithral Bracers, and +3 Rod of Niltongue all regularly trade at the value of a UR. Similarly the 4C's are now labeled as Relics, so I could see someone sacrificing a Draco-Lich Claw Charm to turn it into a more valuable relic.

But the supply of these are much smaller and still would incur a high dollar cost as opposed to a common token.

Ed

lazlo_hollyfeld1985 wrote:

Disbeeleaf wrote: It should be even easier. If someone turns up with a fake token and tries to use it or turn it in and it is identified as such for whatever reason, the user is either the culprit or they are going to know who they got it from. We got all of our high value tokens from TD only, and for those that do buy, sell or trade them, they are going to know who they exchanged a high value token with. The culprit can be traced with minimal difficulty I believe.

If
You are doing 5-6 trades then sure it's easy. I must have traded with over 100 people at gencon.
Do I keep track of everyone. No.
Do I make fake tokens..no
If I sold a fake would I refund it ...yes and I have.

This is also going to come down to. Oh crap I have a fake ring of awesomeness.
Hmmm. Who selling one...oh look Kirk is. So I buy that. Then claim I got the fake one from him.
So it is still flawed.

Kaledor wrote: Flawed system of findimg the coin counterfeiter based on this method. This could give a good lead. I traded with at least 20+ different people at GENCON. I did not keep track of names. Fake tokena are out there aND have been out there since I started playing TD.

Just because you traded with Bob who had a fake CoA does not mean he did made the fake. If Bob trade with Tom to get the CoA... does not mean Tom made the fake. Very flawed method. But it is a good way to srart.just can be time cosuming. We do this everyday where I work at and have found many of the leads are dead ends. Tracing the person would be extremely hard.

And buying out college tons could end up with fakes... so many different ways to end up getting fakes.

Just let people trade in fakes, use a numbering system and call it a day. Give a verification process and let the people trade in and get new numbered tokens.

Back in May, during the "Alert! Fake Tokens..." thread involving Rod parts, I talked about how a clever faker could use legitimate trades to "cover" for their fakes:

truedungeon.com/forum?func=view&catid=580&id=222143&limit=12&start=84#222513



Now on the one hand, players shouldn't be penalized for not keeping good records (though I actually do keep records of all my trades, and for UR+'s, I can tell you their provenance and where I got it from).

Then again, traders should also be aware of their own accountability. If you make a lot of trades with shady individuals or get lots of "too good to be true" type deals, then you are at higher risk of encountering fakes. Thus even if someone is not making fakes themselves, they can still be facilitating the fake economy due to their "fast and loose" trading behavior.

MasterED wrote: But the supply of these are much smaller and still would incur a high dollar cost as opposed to a common token.

It was probably short-sighted to have Relics as gold-backed but you know what they say about hindsight!

But the problem is that even with UR's, you can have a major divergence in value. Compare the Scepter of the Dead to the Horn of Plenty. Even with more recent tokens, being able to convert a Gnomish Fizzy Lifting Device into a Boots of the North Wind would be worthwhile. So limiting all tokens of a given rarity to a certain back would reduce the most severe problems (convert common to a relic) but not completely eliminate the problem (convert a crappy UR/Relic/Legendary into a valuable one).

Incognito wrote:

MasterED wrote: But the supply of these are much smaller and still would incur a high dollar cost as opposed to a common token.

It was probably short-sighted to have Relics as gold-backed but you know what they say about hindsight!

But the problem is that even with UR's, you can have a major divergence in value. Compare the Scepter of the Dead to the Horn of Plenty. Even with more recent tokens, being able to convert a Gnomish Fizzy Lifting Device into a Boots of the North Wind would be worthwhile. So limiting all tokens of a given rarity to a certain back would reduce the most severe problems (convert common to a relic) but not completely eliminate the problem (convert a crappy UR/Relic/Legendary into a valuable one).

Right but if we switched all UR/Relics for 2016+ to a different back it would help minimize it (and a cheap solution). Even if there is a Gnomish Fizzy Lifting Device post-2016 it is unlikely someone will be dozens just to copy them to relics.

Ed

I think that a watermark may be the easiest/cheapest way going forward. I would love to have an RFID in each token so a coach could just scan your build, but that is a pipe dream.