TOPIC: Counterfeit Token Concerns

I'm still at this minimum solution: new token color for Relic and serial numbers on Legendaries and high-value relics, if not all of them. I don't think we want a new token color for URs because you'll see them in the 10-packs. Serial number is fine, but the quantity involved is pretty high.

If we don't have a full official registry then we at least need a way to verify that each number is legit.

I like the UV watermark idea if it's possible.

You'll never make it impossible to counterfeit, just harder and less profitable.

Values fluctuate , and Jeff can't be expected to swap tokens in and out all the time as things rise and fall in the market place.

But just adding a blue chip for 5-star transmutes, and put the CoA on orange (value wise, it's a legendary) would go a long way. Folks will sacrifice a dime token to make a $1000 one, but will they trash $100 one for a $300? That's a much riskier play.

Add a serial number on new URs+ for tracking, and you're even closer, because now we can track it.

What people may not realize is, selling a fake as a real token is a real crime. If it passes through US mail, that's another felony on top. When found, the person or persons responsible are looking at real prison time. This has gone from petty fraud to grand larceny.

So the strongest countermeasure is to let the FBI and U.S. Post Office get involved, and let everyone see what happens when you rob from this community.

Kirk Bauer wrote: I'm still at this minimum solution: new token color for Relic and serial numbers on Legendaries and high-value relics, if not all of them. I don't think we want a new token color for URs because you'll see them in the 10-packs. Serial number is fine, but the quantity involved is pretty high.

If we don't have a full official registry then we at least need a way to verify that each number is legit.

I like the UV watermark idea if it's possible.

A unique token color could be done for URs too, if Jeff really wanted to. All that would need to change is using an opaque cellophane wrap instead of the clear ones used now. Not sure it's really necessary though, that being said. It's Relics and 1K reward tokens that are being counterfeited, for the most part. I would imagine most counterfeit URs are being used in-game, and those people are just cheating themselves.

Kirk Bauer wrote: I'm still at this minimum solution: new token color for Relic and serial numbers on Legendaries and high-value relics, if not all of them. I don't think we want a new token color for URs because you'll see them in the 10-packs. Serial number is fine, but the quantity involved is pretty high.

If we don't have a full official registry then we at least need a way to verify that each number is legit.

I like the UV watermark idea if it's possible.

I agree with Kirk on the UR token color - probably don't want to change that.

I don't think we need serial numbers on UR's, but for Relics, Legendary and Eldtrich items I would strongly suggest it and that they be Alphanumeric.

Any official registry should be offline for Relic, Legendary, and Eldtrich items so that you have to email TD for it. Otherwise, too easy to write a script that will just churn through searches looking for "valid" responses which you could then just copy onto a counterfeit token and screw the legitimate owner of that token.

And yeah, I agree with changing the plastic sealer into one that has a UV watermark (that can be verified with a simple UV pen light) for all tokens UR and above, even if UR's don't get a new color token or serial numbers.

Kirk Bauer wrote: I'm still at this minimum solution: new token color for Relic and serial numbers on Legendaries and high-value relics, if not all of them. I don't think we want a new token color for URs because you'll see them in the 10-packs. Serial number is fine, but the quantity involved is pretty high.

If UR had a different back then UR in token packs could be a proxy where you submit it back to Jeff for your UR. That likely wouldn't be faked because who is going to send a fake proxy to TD? Sure it is an added cost but the benefit of UR protection is worth it.

Ed

MasterED wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote: I'm still at this minimum solution: new token color for Relic and serial numbers on Legendaries and high-value relics, if not all of them. I don't think we want a new token color for URs because you'll see them in the 10-packs. Serial number is fine, but the quantity involved is pretty high.

If UR had a different back then UR in token packs could be a proxy where you submit it back to Jeff for your UR. That likely wouldn't be faked because who is going to send a fake proxy to TD? Sure it is an added cost but the benefit of UR protection is worth it.

Ed

Alternatively .. don't use clear shrink-wrap.

Incognito wrote: I would be cautious about letting someone (including player coaches) physically handle the tokens (such as to nominally inspect it).

If a player with a high-value treasure enhancer refused to let me make a tactile inspection of the token, I would not approve the use of that token.

Incognito wrote: this year's GT bonus room led to a lot of +5 Averon's Deathcleavers floating around.

"A lot" seems hyperbolic. How many is "a lot" in this situation?

Joshua Baessler wrote: A unique token color could be done for URs too, if Jeff really wanted to. All that would need to change is using an opaque cellophane wrap instead of the clear ones used now.

^What I was thinking.

Joshua Baessler wrote: Not sure it's really necessary... ...I would imagine most counterfeit URs are being used in-game, and those people are just cheating themselves.

It is possible that there are people selling/trading fake URs, and we don't see it because the UR's are not being turned into TD. There's no data on this.

However, I'm not really worried about this, as most of the trading I'm aware of is done by well establish members of the forum.

I don't think we need to change the URs. That said, a purple back would be cool. It would add to the coolness of getting one for the first time and cut down on new players not recognizing that the UR in their pack is special.

Side note: I wish this was a Lord and Lady's thread, and not open for Guests to read. At least the bit where we are all discussing possible hidden security features.

CrowOfPyke wrote: Any official registry should be offline for Relic, Legendary, and Eldtrich items so that you have to email TD for it. Otherwise, too easy to write a script that will just churn through searches looking for "valid" responses which you could then just copy onto a counterfeit token and screw the legitimate owner of that token.

I definitely think it needs to be online. Jeff registers it to you when you transmute it, you tell the system when you sell it (and who you sold it to), simple as that. When a token is registered under my account I may (1) transfer to somebody else, (2) report it lost and stolen, and (3) enter an email address and the system will send them an email confirming a token is registered to me. This will prevent any sort of scripting to find valid numbers. Lost or stolen tokens are available as a public list.

Druegar wrote:

Incognito wrote: I would be cautious about letting someone (including player coaches) physically handle the tokens (such as to nominally inspect it).

If a player with a high-value treasure enhancer refused to let me make a tactile inspection of the token, I would not approve the use of that token.

I think Dave is right about not getting the coached involved. Say play A purchased token and you inspect it and think it is fake... that would possibly end up in a huge debate. If a player does not want someone handling their tokens other than looking at them it is there choice. By telling a player that won't let you handle a token would end up calling director or Jeff in.

I do not challenge or want to touch a players tokens. Even in the epilogue room when they say the coaches miscounted their treasure pulls... I just ask to see a the token to conform they hand one. I do not go inspecting the token.

Kaledor wrote: I think Dave is right about not getting the coached involved.

That's fine, but that's a different issue. In 2015, Jeff wanted coaches to inspect and tally treasure enhancing tokens. So we did. Therefore, in 2015, if a player had a high-value treasure enhancing token in a binder and refused to let me inspect it, I would be HIGHLY suspicious and almost certainly would not allow the player to use it.

In 2016, if Jeff decides he wants to implement some other policy to reduce fraud, I'm cool with that.

A coach asking to touch my CoA seems like a legitimate request to me. It hasn't happened, but if it did I would be fine with it. I wouldn't want it leaving my sight though.

As for official token registries and such, yes that would be nice to have but probably not necessary. A distinct token back color for the CoA (blue would be nice) and numbering seems plenty sufficient.

Numbering can help even without an online registry. If there are two out there that are discovered with the same number, then at least one of them is guaranteed to be fake. Or if a number is found that TD knows they have never issued.