Key Change(blog.counter-strike.net)
blog.counter-strike.net
Key Change
https://blog.counter-strike.net/index.php/2019/10/26113/
156 comments
I think CSGO doesn't have as many stable "currency items" like buds or refs in TF2; keys are pretty much the only currency item. But it still has plenty of high-price items that can be sold reliably for prices upwards of $1000, just like some unusuals and things in TF2. (Disclaimer: haven't done any trading in CSGO for a couple years, TF2 for many years)
I agree that this change only complicates the process and probably doesn't stop them. Launderers are just going run the numbers (since drop rates are public), and at the scale they're operating at they can probably rely on expected values. If the new margins still work for them they'll just unlock boxes and sell the skins directly. And I'm inclined to think the margins will still work, since the market kind of naturally prices items around key costs.
I agree that this change only complicates the process and probably doesn't stop them. Launderers are just going run the numbers (since drop rates are public), and at the scale they're operating at they can probably rely on expected values. If the new margins still work for them they'll just unlock boxes and sell the skins directly. And I'm inclined to think the margins will still work, since the market kind of naturally prices items around key costs.
Margins are really, really bad though. You get like $1 for $10 of keys. Plus it takes a huge amount of time to open all those chests. Plus if you need that many chests you need to buy those from the market. I think it's not going to be worth it for a lot of people.
> all of that is to say that you aren't going to stop money launderers by cutting liquidity, you do it by identifying their behaviors and blocking them based on that.
Valve doesn't need to stop money laundering. They just need the money launderers to go elsewhere. (And they need the regulators to leave Valve alone.)
Valve doesn't need to stop money laundering. They just need the money launderers to go elsewhere. (And they need the regulators to leave Valve alone.)
Why is this necessary? With crypto it's super easy to use a tumbler or simply convert to an unregulated exchange and back again.
Because in practice the places where it’s easy to go from BTC to fiat, and the places where you can easily money launderers, are distinct.
Financial regulation has caught up to most of the exchanges and it’s not always easy to get cash out of a system (and that’s not even mentioning loads of shadier exchanges near-guaranteed insolvency)
Financial regulation has caught up to most of the exchanges and it’s not always easy to get cash out of a system (and that’s not even mentioning loads of shadier exchanges near-guaranteed insolvency)
Speed, cost come to mind.
Also eg bitcoin leaves a globally readable audit trail.
Monero doesn't.
At the risk of splitting hairs: even Monero leaves a globally readable audit trail. It's just designed to be much harder / impossible to track. But no one needs even a warrant to start analyzing.
Random criminals are well advised not to trust their own judgement about crypto claims, nor their own prowess in operations security.
Keep in mind that eg lots of bitcoin exchanges have been hacked without any flaw in bitcoin itself. It's probably even easier to accidentally leak information, even if the underlying coin you are using doesn't.
Random criminals are well advised not to trust their own judgement about crypto claims, nor their own prowess in operations security.
Keep in mind that eg lots of bitcoin exchanges have been hacked without any flaw in bitcoin itself. It's probably even easier to accidentally leak information, even if the underlying coin you are using doesn't.
Exchanges are subject to AML
On Steam market you can do better. I keep buying cases and selling them at minimal profit (but tens of cents a day do add up over time). The price swing is just slightly larger than steam's share on the trade.
(Of course if you want to liquidate to non-trivial amount of money, you're probably not interested in speculation)
(Of course if you want to liquidate to non-trivial amount of money, you're probably not interested in speculation)
What does your hourly wage from doing this look like? Just curious.
Heh, it's not a wage. It's "mindlessly click buy/sell after getting market notification and get a free game a year".
It is actually a wage, that time isn't free. You could get a job at McDonalds for 1-2 weeks of the year and make the same amount of money in probably a lot less time.
Yes but is that fun? Not everything is about making money.
Alternative take: it is about making money but paid labor is an exchange in return for money and what you put in is more than just time and effort.
If you like your job, your cost looks very different from doing an equally demanding job you hate. The emotional cost is real and can have long-term effects on your health.
Plus of course clicking stuff on your computer is something you can do in your time wherever you are as long as you have an Internet connection. Working for 1-2 hours at a gas station (or McDonald's or whatever) requires a fixed schedule and commuting, not to mention that you'd likely need to agree to a minimum number of working hours and are unable to just skip it whenever you want.
"Why don't you do this other form of unskilled labor for minimum wage instead" is a legitimate question when the current alternative is time consuming and they're struggling to make ends meet. Not so much when it's something they do for fun every now and then while already holding a job that pays above minimum wage.
If you like your job, your cost looks very different from doing an equally demanding job you hate. The emotional cost is real and can have long-term effects on your health.
Plus of course clicking stuff on your computer is something you can do in your time wherever you are as long as you have an Internet connection. Working for 1-2 hours at a gas station (or McDonald's or whatever) requires a fixed schedule and commuting, not to mention that you'd likely need to agree to a minimum number of working hours and are unable to just skip it whenever you want.
"Why don't you do this other form of unskilled labor for minimum wage instead" is a legitimate question when the current alternative is time consuming and they're struggling to make ends meet. Not so much when it's something they do for fun every now and then while already holding a job that pays above minimum wage.
steam market didn't exist then. the other comment links to a steamrep thread - steamrep was a reputation tracker for traders doing real world transactions, which was crucial to mitigate counterparty risk without steam market.
the thing to remember here is that money launderers are looking to push a lot of volume. they care about the volume of clean money they can get, even if that means negative margins (you are "paying" for the service). i'm guessing market making in crates is not a very high volume kind of service but I might be wrong!
the thing to remember here is that money launderers are looking to push a lot of volume. they care about the volume of clean money they can get, even if that means negative margins (you are "paying" for the service). i'm guessing market making in crates is not a very high volume kind of service but I might be wrong!
It's certainly been speculated about since 2012, at the very least: https://www.reddit.com/r/tf2/comments/134u4d/1111_key_inject... However it seems to have attracted almost no interest from journalists, for whatever reason.
OTOH, since "worldwide fraud networks have recently shifted to using CS:GO keys to liquidate their gains" probably has at least some basis in reality, what's the story there? What other methods are criminals (presumably) shying away from now?
OTOH, since "worldwide fraud networks have recently shifted to using CS:GO keys to liquidate their gains" probably has at least some basis in reality, what's the story there? What other methods are criminals (presumably) shying away from now?
Slightly unrelated:
I used to love playing CS. I tried recently playing again, but after 10 minutes of witnessing all sorts of cheating, I had to stop. Cheaters just killed the game for me.
I used to love playing CS. I tried recently playing again, but after 10 minutes of witnessing all sorts of cheating, I had to stop. Cheaters just killed the game for me.
CS:GO just isn't a fun game for me. Maybe there are cheaters, but sometimes its hard to tell. Instead, I prefer framing it in same vein as why Fortnite isn't fun anymore: People are just way too good nowadays. I like to think I'm generally good at video games, but the people who play CS:GO regularly have a laser focus on it. They're better than good, and that skill discrepancy ruins the game for other people. It takes one Insane Tier player on the enemy team to ruin the game for me, or one cheater, and the probability of running into that in an average game is just too high in the top-tier competitive games.
Skill-based Matchmaking doesn't help, flat out. People smurf. I used to think smurfing was this thing that you'd rarely run into, but then I found out that my roommate smurfs on Apex. At that point, another person in the room said "yeah, I've done that". In these games that are insanely cheap or free; its rampant. I legitimately think that smurfing should be a bannable offense, but I'm not aware of any companies that take it seriously (some have said that its against ToS, but do they apply the same detection heuristics to it they do for actual cheaters?)
Skill-based Matchmaking doesn't help, flat out. People smurf. I used to think smurfing was this thing that you'd rarely run into, but then I found out that my roommate smurfs on Apex. At that point, another person in the room said "yeah, I've done that". In these games that are insanely cheap or free; its rampant. I legitimately think that smurfing should be a bannable offense, but I'm not aware of any companies that take it seriously (some have said that its against ToS, but do they apply the same detection heuristics to it they do for actual cheaters?)
I suppose "smurfing" means, you create a new account, to pretend that you are a new player and therefore get into matches with only newbs?
So the motivation is to feel good at winning against not experienced players?
So the motivation is to feel good at winning against not experienced players?
> So the motivation is to feel good at winning against not experienced players?
Contrast online matchmaking systems that take your assessed skill level into account. These are certainly... widespread. I don't understand why.
The design goal of such a system is that, no matter what your skill level is, you win or lose at a rate indistinguishable from chance. Are you getting better at the game? Doesn't matter; your win rate is constant. Are you getting worse under lack of pressure, since nothing you do affects your performance? Doesn't matter. Nothing you do can affect your performance. Your win rate is constant; the system will seamlessly swap in weaker players to play against you.
If I'm improving at something, I want to see better results than I was getting before. If I'm getting worse, I want to see worse results.
Contrast online matchmaking systems that take your assessed skill level into account. These are certainly... widespread. I don't understand why.
The design goal of such a system is that, no matter what your skill level is, you win or lose at a rate indistinguishable from chance. Are you getting better at the game? Doesn't matter; your win rate is constant. Are you getting worse under lack of pressure, since nothing you do affects your performance? Doesn't matter. Nothing you do can affect your performance. Your win rate is constant; the system will seamlessly swap in weaker players to play against you.
If I'm improving at something, I want to see better results than I was getting before. If I'm getting worse, I want to see worse results.
> If I'm improving at something, I want to see better results than I was getting before. If I'm getting worse, I want to see worse results.
If you win you get a higher ranking.
If you win you get a higher ranking.
The problem is that the more skill you have, the more effort you need to put in while playing. So if you get too good you can't have a fun relaxed game anymore (without getting wrecked and losing rank). Smurfing (playing on lower rank) or cheating (playing effortlessly at your real rank) would be a solution for that... but they are obviously bad and unfair for others.
The new scrimmage mode seems to be a promising solution for that though.
You appear to be describing a completely different problem than I am.
What else would you do in an MMO? The flip side is that with matchmaking, higher level matches are higher quality and more enjoyable too.
Do grandmasters play chess against beginners? I think most people want to be challenged, and playing with others of similar skill seems to be the norm in most games.
> Do grandmasters play chess against beginners?
All the time. They teach people to play; they do stunts like playing against 5 people at once; they sit in the park and take all comers.
If you want to prove you're good, go and fight someone who's known to be good. But that generates information for other people, not for you. If you want to determine how good you are, you need to fight a lot of different people.
All the time. They teach people to play; they do stunts like playing against 5 people at once; they sit in the park and take all comers.
If you want to prove you're good, go and fight someone who's known to be good. But that generates information for other people, not for you. If you want to determine how good you are, you need to fight a lot of different people.
Very good, I chose a poor example. You can see the point I'm making, though?
No, I can't. All three examples I gave correspond to arguments advanced in this thread as to why you might want to smurf.
They teach people to play -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21393157
> If you play with a friend who has a low rank, it is much easier to create a free now account (that will start in a low skill group) than it is to obtain one for them which is already in a higher skill group.
They do stunts like playing against 5 people at once -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21394927
> you can essentially carry your entire team to victory because your skill level is so much higher than the enemy. You get to fuck up a bunch of newbs and win the game, while your team mates are drooling at spawn.
They sit in the park and take all comers -- I've been pushing this angle myself:
> If you want to determine how good you are, you need to fight a lot of different people.
I'm arguing that the idea of matchmaking according to assessed skill level is inherently flawed, and smurfing is a natural workaround to this self-inflicted problem.
They teach people to play -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21393157
> If you play with a friend who has a low rank, it is much easier to create a free now account (that will start in a low skill group) than it is to obtain one for them which is already in a higher skill group.
They do stunts like playing against 5 people at once -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21394927
> you can essentially carry your entire team to victory because your skill level is so much higher than the enemy. You get to fuck up a bunch of newbs and win the game, while your team mates are drooling at spawn.
They sit in the park and take all comers -- I've been pushing this angle myself:
> If you want to determine how good you are, you need to fight a lot of different people.
I'm arguing that the idea of matchmaking according to assessed skill level is inherently flawed, and smurfing is a natural workaround to this self-inflicted problem.
> The design goal of such a system is that, no matter what your skill level is, you win or lose at a rate indistinguishable from chance.
Actually, if you are improving you will do better than even, if you are getting worse you will do worse—those are the signals for upward or downward movement. When you plateau it should be a coin flip.
> If I'm improving at something, I want to see better results than I was getting before.
While you are improving, you will. Roughly, your win rate reflects the derivative of skill.
Actually, if you are improving you will do better than even, if you are getting worse you will do worse—those are the signals for upward or downward movement. When you plateau it should be a coin flip.
> If I'm improving at something, I want to see better results than I was getting before.
While you are improving, you will. Roughly, your win rate reflects the derivative of skill.
> If I'm improving at something, I want to see better results than I was getting before. If I'm getting worse, I want to see worse results.
This is why games using those matchmaking system will give you either MMR (Match Making Rank) points based on you performance. When you win, you "earn" points, and will face stronger opponents (to keep you around 50% victory). And when you loose you will "spend" points to go back to 50% victory on average. The process is very similar to ELO in chess.
So you have a visual indication that you are on the right or wrong path and where you are in terms of skill level compared to other players.
Most game also offer some vanity system, where your character is displayed differently according to the skill level you have reached (Eg: bottom 20% is bronze, 20%-40% is silver, 40-60% is gold, 60-80% is platinum, 80-95% diamond, top 5% is master, and top 1000 players overall are grand master). Players then fight to reach the next level, still with around 50% win-lose rate until they reach the very top or the very bottom).
This is why games using those matchmaking system will give you either MMR (Match Making Rank) points based on you performance. When you win, you "earn" points, and will face stronger opponents (to keep you around 50% victory). And when you loose you will "spend" points to go back to 50% victory on average. The process is very similar to ELO in chess.
So you have a visual indication that you are on the right or wrong path and where you are in terms of skill level compared to other players.
Most game also offer some vanity system, where your character is displayed differently according to the skill level you have reached (Eg: bottom 20% is bronze, 20%-40% is silver, 40-60% is gold, 60-80% is platinum, 80-95% diamond, top 5% is master, and top 1000 players overall are grand master). Players then fight to reach the next level, still with around 50% win-lose rate until they reach the very top or the very bottom).
Yes, that’s exactly right. They just want to feel like gods as they stomp the new players.
This is pretty tough to solve in multiplayer games. I used to play BF2 and the sequel as well, and I noticed I had the most fun when the games were just released, before people figured out the maps and tactics. After that, the game became much more mechanical and repetitive, unfortunately.
The matchmaking system in CSGO almost makes a conscious effort to increase "smurfing". Back in 2013-2015, smurfing was actually a lot harder, because if you won every game, your rank would increase very quickly. This led to a situation where the rank distribution didn't look anything like a bell curve, because people with higher rank had proportionally many more accounts than people in lower ranks.
For some reason, Valve thought that this was a problem. And they modified the matchmaking system in a way that forces the MMR distribution to be a bell curve from the outside. It's not known what exactly they do, but from tracking sites it seems like the distribution starts to "deform" over the course of a week and then gets "squished down" again.
As a player, the effect this has is that 1. accounts at the upper ranks (Global Elite/SMFC) decay really hard, like if you have an account that is GE and you don't play on that account for 3-6 months, you'll be like MGE afterwards. My main account got actually re-ranked from GE to MG2 after they shifted the ranked distribution - after which I won, and this is not an exaggeration, 38 games in a row, and still kept like 75% win rate until the account was GE again. The other effect is that it takes way too long to rank up now, it used to be that if you won 6 games in a row you would very likely rank up, now it can take easily double that.
Put those two together, and you've got a million smurfs obviously. Because anyone who just bought 10 accs for $70 during a sale (and believe me, many, many people did that) can just rotate around accounts and let them decay again once they're too high to smurf on.
Add to that that there is nothing to do once you're GE, there is simply no higher rank, and yeah it's no surprise the game is full of smurfs.
To make things worse, now that Trust Factor exists you can't even compare experiences anymore. If a new player comes to me and says oh I only play against cheaters or smurfs, I can't even give him a way for it to get better. We have no idea how Trust Factor works, and if you're a new player with a bad Trust Factor... what are you gonna do? You have nothing to look forward to. Prime barely even means anything anymore (not that it ever did, but at least it was a small hurdle), and there's no given way for you to increase your Trust Factor.
For some reason, Valve thought that this was a problem. And they modified the matchmaking system in a way that forces the MMR distribution to be a bell curve from the outside. It's not known what exactly they do, but from tracking sites it seems like the distribution starts to "deform" over the course of a week and then gets "squished down" again.
As a player, the effect this has is that 1. accounts at the upper ranks (Global Elite/SMFC) decay really hard, like if you have an account that is GE and you don't play on that account for 3-6 months, you'll be like MGE afterwards. My main account got actually re-ranked from GE to MG2 after they shifted the ranked distribution - after which I won, and this is not an exaggeration, 38 games in a row, and still kept like 75% win rate until the account was GE again. The other effect is that it takes way too long to rank up now, it used to be that if you won 6 games in a row you would very likely rank up, now it can take easily double that.
Put those two together, and you've got a million smurfs obviously. Because anyone who just bought 10 accs for $70 during a sale (and believe me, many, many people did that) can just rotate around accounts and let them decay again once they're too high to smurf on.
Add to that that there is nothing to do once you're GE, there is simply no higher rank, and yeah it's no surprise the game is full of smurfs.
To make things worse, now that Trust Factor exists you can't even compare experiences anymore. If a new player comes to me and says oh I only play against cheaters or smurfs, I can't even give him a way for it to get better. We have no idea how Trust Factor works, and if you're a new player with a bad Trust Factor... what are you gonna do? You have nothing to look forward to. Prime barely even means anything anymore (not that it ever did, but at least it was a small hurdle), and there's no given way for you to increase your Trust Factor.
Hang on, that's a lot of lingo to decode there.
Are you saying that people spend a lot of money to buy multiple Steam accounts (that have CS:GO on them), so that they can slowly rotate which account they use for playing, so that they avoid gaining ranks and being matched with players that are as good as them, so that they can keep dominating lesser skilled players every time they play?
Are you saying that people spend a lot of money to buy multiple Steam accounts (that have CS:GO on them), so that they can slowly rotate which account they use for playing, so that they avoid gaining ranks and being matched with players that are as good as them, so that they can keep dominating lesser skilled players every time they play?
Yes, that's exactly what people do. Although the spending money part is kind of optional now, since the game is free to play. And it's not really "a lot", it's like 1 AAA game, for most likely way more hours of entertainment.
This is also something that happens in pretty much every multiplayer game with skill based matchmaking that exists. However, other games are much better at mitigating this. In LoL for example, your MMR doesn't decay at all. It does get soft-reset once a year when the new season starts, but that reset is quite soft and you can't "stack" multiple years of resets on top of each other. If you had top 1% MMR in 2015, you still have top 1-2% MMR. All games could do more to prevent this, simply by changing how their matchmaking works, but CSGO really takes the cake in terms of requiring an absolute minimum amount of effort, plus actually "forcing" people to smurf unintentionally, just because they took a long break from the game. It's comical at this point.
This is also something that happens in pretty much every multiplayer game with skill based matchmaking that exists. However, other games are much better at mitigating this. In LoL for example, your MMR doesn't decay at all. It does get soft-reset once a year when the new season starts, but that reset is quite soft and you can't "stack" multiple years of resets on top of each other. If you had top 1% MMR in 2015, you still have top 1-2% MMR. All games could do more to prevent this, simply by changing how their matchmaking works, but CSGO really takes the cake in terms of requiring an absolute minimum amount of effort, plus actually "forcing" people to smurf unintentionally, just because they took a long break from the game. It's comical at this point.
Wow, how unbelievably insecure do you have to be to do that? In CS1.6, I was always appreciative of the chance to play against higher skilled players, becuase that's how you get better and better.
The alternative to that decay system was having smurfs that lost on purpose when their rank got too high.
Maybe something like a hidden quick ranking would help. I.e. something trivial like average kill/death ratio, numbers of headshots, ...things that make smurfs annoying. And then match you still according to the real rank, but put people with the same hidden rank in the enemy team.
Maybe something like a hidden quick ranking would help. I.e. something trivial like average kill/death ratio, numbers of headshots, ...things that make smurfs annoying. And then match you still according to the real rank, but put people with the same hidden rank in the enemy team.
>having smurfs that lost on purpose when their rank got too high
Those still exist, but they are a tiny minority compared to smurfs who just decay. The simple problem is this: Losing on purpose is extremely boring and very time consuming. Having to spend 50% of your time on an account intentionally losing just so you can win a few easy matches is more annoying than just playing on a higher ranked account.
>Maybe something like a hidden quick ranking would help.
If I'm being cynical, Trust Factor is exactly this kind of hidden rank system. Which is probably why they're seeing decent results from it. The problem however is how do you distinguish between a talented player and a smurf? Someone who simply played a lot of 1.6 or Quake will have exactly the same indicators as a smurf or even a cheater.
Doing this results in very fair matches if we simply define fair as "both teams have a decent chance of winning", but it completely kills any meaning of ranked progression. If someone is "DMG", that has a completely different meaning combined with a very high hidden rank or a very low hidden rank. It's literally worlds apart. And that's exactly what we're seeing with Trust Factor of course, low trust factor matches are worlds apart in skill (whether that's actual skill or cheats) from high trust factor matches.
What would really help is simply abandoning the idea that the ranked distribution has to look like a bell curve, removing MMR decay, and showing some sort of ranked points after reaching GE. That would get rid of 80% of smurfs easily. Even better would be a ranked system more like LoLs system, so you can decay people's rank without decaying their MMR. Plus ideally some sort of way to recognize when players perform way above or below their expected skill level, and quickly adjusting their MMR. (For situations where people buy accounts or buy boosting services. Some people think that boosting should be detected and then the adjustment should be extra slow - but that's just stupid really. It's not going to stop anyone from boosting, it just means the booster is going to destroy more games. Detect boosting, and rank them up really quickly, and then detect when someone is playing really badly, and rank them down really quickly. That keeps the amount of destroyed games at a minimum.)
Those still exist, but they are a tiny minority compared to smurfs who just decay. The simple problem is this: Losing on purpose is extremely boring and very time consuming. Having to spend 50% of your time on an account intentionally losing just so you can win a few easy matches is more annoying than just playing on a higher ranked account.
>Maybe something like a hidden quick ranking would help.
If I'm being cynical, Trust Factor is exactly this kind of hidden rank system. Which is probably why they're seeing decent results from it. The problem however is how do you distinguish between a talented player and a smurf? Someone who simply played a lot of 1.6 or Quake will have exactly the same indicators as a smurf or even a cheater.
Doing this results in very fair matches if we simply define fair as "both teams have a decent chance of winning", but it completely kills any meaning of ranked progression. If someone is "DMG", that has a completely different meaning combined with a very high hidden rank or a very low hidden rank. It's literally worlds apart. And that's exactly what we're seeing with Trust Factor of course, low trust factor matches are worlds apart in skill (whether that's actual skill or cheats) from high trust factor matches.
What would really help is simply abandoning the idea that the ranked distribution has to look like a bell curve, removing MMR decay, and showing some sort of ranked points after reaching GE. That would get rid of 80% of smurfs easily. Even better would be a ranked system more like LoLs system, so you can decay people's rank without decaying their MMR. Plus ideally some sort of way to recognize when players perform way above or below their expected skill level, and quickly adjusting their MMR. (For situations where people buy accounts or buy boosting services. Some people think that boosting should be detected and then the adjustment should be extra slow - but that's just stupid really. It's not going to stop anyone from boosting, it just means the booster is going to destroy more games. Detect boosting, and rank them up really quickly, and then detect when someone is playing really badly, and rank them down really quickly. That keeps the amount of destroyed games at a minimum.)
[deleted]
there are games that solve the issue by adding physical limitation to movement so that there's a cap to the coordination skill ceiling, nothing can fix esp (enemy highlights trough wall and scenery) of course but there are ways to constrain players so that the field is level, so for example both in war thunder and arma 2 your turn rate and aiming speed is controlled by the type and equipment you're using. even an aimbot or godlike reflexes won't save an enemy if you manage to get the drop on them and using terrain cleverly can negate most of the skilled/cheater advantages.
You should try the new scrimmage mode. The matchmaking there surprisingly works much better than on ranked matches.
I.e. most of the times there are 2 good guys, 2 mediocre guys, and 1 beginner in each team. I've had a lot of actually fun 15:15 games there.
I.e. most of the times there are 2 good guys, 2 mediocre guys, and 1 beginner in each team. I've had a lot of actually fun 15:15 games there.
What is the motivation to smurf other than just destroying a bunch of new players? Surely that must get boring after a while?
Two options:
A) You can play a game at your actual skill level, which requires your team to communicate effectively and play together. This requires someone to take the lead and coordinate the other players. That just doesn't happen in drop in games. It is incredibly not-fun and frustrating to be playing decently yourself, but be anchored by incompetent team members. You get guys who want to play their own way, or just aren't interested in "taking orders". Plenty of arrogant dudes that won't listen to someone that is a lower rank.
B) Play at a level where you can essentially carry your entire team to victory because your skill level is so much higher than the enemy. You get to fuck up a bunch of newbs and win the game, while your team mates are drooling at spawn.
B is definitely more fun. Especially when the people smurfing can get their fix of A in an organised match with an organised team, outside of match making.
A) You can play a game at your actual skill level, which requires your team to communicate effectively and play together. This requires someone to take the lead and coordinate the other players. That just doesn't happen in drop in games. It is incredibly not-fun and frustrating to be playing decently yourself, but be anchored by incompetent team members. You get guys who want to play their own way, or just aren't interested in "taking orders". Plenty of arrogant dudes that won't listen to someone that is a lower rank.
B) Play at a level where you can essentially carry your entire team to victory because your skill level is so much higher than the enemy. You get to fuck up a bunch of newbs and win the game, while your team mates are drooling at spawn.
B is definitely more fun. Especially when the people smurfing can get their fix of A in an organised match with an organised team, outside of match making.
Can't really tell for CS:GO but in League of Legends, good players create smurfs all the time and the motivation is usually to prove yourself and/or other people (e.g. Twitch viewers, Reddit) that you can keep a very high winrate and reach the top 1% in a few weeks. Sometimes it comes with an extra challenge like playing only the same champion.
> just destroying a bunch of new players? Surely that must get boring after a while?
Smurfs never play more than 4 or 5 games versus new players. The matchmaking system doesn't match a guy who has 100% winrate over his 20 first games with a guy who has only 30-50%.
> just destroying a bunch of new players? Surely that must get boring after a while?
Smurfs never play more than 4 or 5 games versus new players. The matchmaking system doesn't match a guy who has 100% winrate over his 20 first games with a guy who has only 30-50%.
If you play with a friend who has a low rank, it is much easier to create a free now account (that will start in a low skill group) than it is to obtain one for them which is already in a higher skill group. Not saying it is a good thing to do, but it is another reason why you'd find better players in lower skill matches.
And yet plenty of people will do it constantly. Apparently there are some gaming communities (I've heard this of China) where using cheats in multiplayer games is routine. The goal is to win, it doesn't matter how.
It's more relaxing than having to focus 100% to play on your maximum skill... Also you can play with your friends that are on a lower level. And when I do it I try to keep a 1:1 kill/death ratio so it doesn't get completely unfair for the enemy team.
Same experience. People always say "Oh maybe they are smurfs, or just really good."
No. Elite players are less common than hackers. And these people were actively cheating and not even pretending to not be cheating. Twitchy aiming, insta lock-on head, could go around a corner and kill 4.5 people on the other side before going down.
A lot of people mistake cheating for really good players. But if you watch a lot of competitive FPS games, even the pro players do not have perfect aim and ESP. They can't round a corner and frag a whole team who is facing the correct way waiting for them.
It is seriously everywhere. League of Legends has a cheating problem. Call of Duty has a cheating problem. Fortnite, PUBG, it is all of the major games.
Unfortunately, I think I'm just done with competitive online gaming. Time was you could join a server, play with the same group of people. They would kick anyone with ping over 50. Anymore, there are too many people playing over WIFI with horrible connections teleporting around. And too many people paying $5/mo to get a cheat engine.
No. Elite players are less common than hackers. And these people were actively cheating and not even pretending to not be cheating. Twitchy aiming, insta lock-on head, could go around a corner and kill 4.5 people on the other side before going down.
A lot of people mistake cheating for really good players. But if you watch a lot of competitive FPS games, even the pro players do not have perfect aim and ESP. They can't round a corner and frag a whole team who is facing the correct way waiting for them.
It is seriously everywhere. League of Legends has a cheating problem. Call of Duty has a cheating problem. Fortnite, PUBG, it is all of the major games.
Unfortunately, I think I'm just done with competitive online gaming. Time was you could join a server, play with the same group of people. They would kick anyone with ping over 50. Anymore, there are too many people playing over WIFI with horrible connections teleporting around. And too many people paying $5/mo to get a cheat engine.
> League of Legends has a cheating problem
No it doesn't. Cheaters are incredibly rare in ranked games.
Cheating is an easy way to get your account banned super fast and creating a new account is a huge time investment.
You won't find any experienced people saying cheating is a problem in that game.
No it doesn't. Cheaters are incredibly rare in ranked games.
Cheating is an easy way to get your account banned super fast and creating a new account is a huge time investment.
You won't find any experienced people saying cheating is a problem in that game.
Several years ago it was a massive issue with BoL. They've done some serious updates to limit the issue.
Online matchmaking has changed things for the better and for the worse. I used to play BF1942 online and there was no matchmaker. You could browse and join random servers all day, or you found one with a good community on it. You frequented it, you got to know people, and you had a great time. They probably had a good admin presence and any cheaters or toxic people got banned quickly. Used to be too that everyone's computer was almost certainly wired into their router. Now, as you say, most people are one wifi with terrible connections.
Now you get placed with random people you'll never see again, a fifth of whom it feels like are cheating anyway.
Now you get placed with random people you'll never see again, a fifth of whom it feels like are cheating anyway.
I’ve played about 550 hours of csgo. A combination of prime only matchmaking and having established a high trust factor makes it the best matchmaking experience I’ve ever had. No one hacks, toxic players are rare, many pick-up players communicate and are not toxic. The norm is to behave. It’s very refreshing. I know that outside of this ivory tower is a concentrated cess pool of trash, but if you can stick it out it is worth it to get in.
I have prime and high trust factor. MM for me at least, is full of cheaters. ESEA has been a much nicer experience. I never see sketchy stuff.
I’m not going to install kernel mode anticheat for anyone. This policy keeps me off some popular games like pubg and battlefield, but it also keeps malware off my computer. I’m surprised anyone uses ESEA after their crypto miner scandal. We’ll hear about their keyboard logger in a few years after all of the data has been sold off.
Boot from a different drive to play games. Windows 10 is already basically a root kit. Don’t use it for anything you care about.
If you must use it then you can try and regain some control but I doubt it really works:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/windo...
If you must use it then you can try and regain some control but I doubt it really works:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/windo...
ESEA and FaceIt is a better experience cheat wise. But I also observe a higher skill level there. I've only played pickups on FaceIt, and the toxicity there is the same—if not worse—as MM.
I started playing about 10 months ago. I had played ages ago when the original came out (Connecting through dial up!).
When I started this time I sucked. I was constantly on the last places. As time has passed I think I have become better. Nowadays I am normally in the middle rank.
I still suck though, that's why I usually play death match. It gives me the best time/enjoyment ratio.
It never occurred to me that some ppl could be using autoaiming or similar cheats.
For me, a very casual player, it is very enjoyable.
When I started this time I sucked. I was constantly on the last places. As time has passed I think I have become better. Nowadays I am normally in the middle rank.
I still suck though, that's why I usually play death match. It gives me the best time/enjoyment ratio.
It never occurred to me that some ppl could be using autoaiming or similar cheats.
For me, a very casual player, it is very enjoyable.
I have a theory that toxic players reports non-toxic players, which can create a weird loop of retaining non-toxic players in a low trust factor. I don't know, but I'm surprised with some of the toxicity I experience, and it takes _a lot_ for me to get angry with other players and grief or curse.
People with low trust factor have lower weight reports. The pools are established and clearly separated so its just a matter of surviving the sieve long enough to get where you need to.
Same, but if you try complaining on /r/globaloffensive all you get is the usual "git gud noob" or some excuse about low trust factor. Even though I have a 5 year old account with 100+ games for some reason every other match it puts me against brand new accounts blatantly cheating
It went free to play last year. This removed the cost penalty so it was flooded with cheaters.
That almost completely defeats the purpose of VAC or whatever they are calling it now. Who cares if they're banned for life when they can make an infinite number of accounts at no cost. The price of the game was what made VAC bans effective.
This x100. Maybe we'll get another Counter-Strike when Half-Life 3 comes out.
There's Prime Matchmaking mode, which can only be used by players who've paid $20 or played like enough to get to level 21, which takes a long time.
I was going to say, last I remember CSGO had very little cheating in it. But I haven't played in about a year...
I always felt the AWPers were cheating in CS back in the early 2000s, but I think they were just better than me.
As a low-ping AWP sniper back in the day, we weren't all cheating. It was super satisfying to get a string of headshots...
I agree with this. I used to play a lot (competitive matches, got to near the top of the main league in the UK for CS:Source) and I think for your average player it feels the same to be playing against good players as it does against people who are cheating. My observations during this time is that there were actually very few cheaters, and most people who were being accused on public servers were just good players playing the way that I did against players of a lower skill level.
I would encounter someone who was clearly and obviously cheating only once every few weeks.
I would encounter someone who was clearly and obviously cheating only once every few weeks.
Cheating has exploded in Danger Zone mode lately.
Hard to play a few games without a cheater.
This. The only multiplayer game I play any more is World of Tanks, and that’s because it’s so laughably rigged that even cheaters can’t stand out.
Were you playing on VAC-secured servers? While not perfect, they're pretty good keeping up with the changing landscape of cheats.
VAC servers don't really matter; the bans come in waves so even when new cheats are detected you're still going to play a bunch of games against people using them until the actual ban wave happens. Retroactive fixes are applied to stats and stuff so you don't have "losses" against cheaters but when you're playing against them it really sucks, and sucks the fun out of the game.
Banning in waves after they can detect the chear seems just like a money grab at the expense of real players
It's done to make it harder for cheat makers and cheaters to pin down what exactly got them caught. It's a common tactic across many games.
How is it a money grab? There's no recurring subscription fees to play CS:GO
<strikethrough, see reply>If you want to continue playing after a full ban, you need a new Steam account and buy the game again.</strikethrough>
That said, taking time for detection to be developed and not wanting to give live feedback to cheat developers are also good explanations for waves.
That said, taking time for detection to be developed and not wanting to give live feedback to cheat developers are also good explanations for waves.
> If you want to continue playing after a full ban, you need a new Steam account and buy the game again.
CSGO is free to play. If you get banned, you only have to register a new Steam account...
CSGO is free to play. If you get banned, you only have to register a new Steam account...
Oops, it is indeed. That change totally passed me by.
There are "next gen" ROP cheats for FPS games including CS:GO https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21355058
The main problem is that VAC can be better but not without elevated privileges aka borderline rootkit and that's not gonna happen
The main problem is that VAC can be better but not without elevated privileges aka borderline rootkit and that's not gonna happen
I used to develop cheats for CSGO (I work in anti-cheat now). The ROP chain cheat is 100% detectable right now with VAC without rootkits or the like. No cheat is “VAC-proof”. I have seen Valve’s creativity at responding to evolving threats. It’s just a matter of time.
Could you explain how?
Most anticheats are rootkits (see: kernel mode drivers). VAC’s tricks are behavioral detection of cheats and that’s the best approach imo. Trust factor is the real genius. Just put all of the toxic players and potential cheaters together.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think so? But I could be wrong.
It was most def a non-prime match (VAC enabled). They are a complete shit show and deter new players from lasting long in a free to play game.
Forever silver IV
I've played CS on and off for awhile, (Since 1.5/6) and I've collected a number of skins in CS:GO, but I've never understood the appeal of buying keys/skins. Same for most other FPS's with loot box mechanics and skins....whats the appeal? What kind of person thinks its impressive that you've swiped your credit card a few more times then they did, for the same game?
It's not supposed to be impressive, at least for me.
Sometimes you spend some money on the game simply because you really like it and want to support the developers.
I occasionally buy skins for fighting game characters simply because I enjoy looking at those skins (more than I enjoy the defaults). Heck, some characters are played exclusively because of cool skins (e.g., Blanka Chan).
I see no problem spending money in something that just looks cool if you're getting your entertainment value from the game. It's the same reason why you would buy that cool shirt you saw on the internet: you already have plenty of shirts, you don't actually need one more, but it would be cool anyway.
Sometimes you spend some money on the game simply because you really like it and want to support the developers.
I occasionally buy skins for fighting game characters simply because I enjoy looking at those skins (more than I enjoy the defaults). Heck, some characters are played exclusively because of cool skins (e.g., Blanka Chan).
I see no problem spending money in something that just looks cool if you're getting your entertainment value from the game. It's the same reason why you would buy that cool shirt you saw on the internet: you already have plenty of shirts, you don't actually need one more, but it would be cool anyway.
I'm all for people doing whatever they want to do with their money, and I realize different folks have different interests, but I guess I just don't get how this specific model is supposed to work. You pay money for the loot box itself, and then you go back and buy "keys" to open the loot box, and you just keep doing this until you actually get the skin you want?*
I realize you can buy skins directly on the steam market, and avoid the whole random factor, but then you're just paying whatever the market rate is for "coolness" plus the costs of all the other people who did the key/box buying. Plus there is the whole "condition" mechanic, so the skin you get might not even look the way you actually want.
Like I said, people can do whatever they want, but to me its just silly. When you add to that the fact that Valve actively* stops people from playing on custom (i.e. private) servers with modded skins available and it just seems like shitty anti-consumer behavior.
I realize you can buy skins directly on the steam market, and avoid the whole random factor, but then you're just paying whatever the market rate is for "coolness" plus the costs of all the other people who did the key/box buying. Plus there is the whole "condition" mechanic, so the skin you get might not even look the way you actually want.
Like I said, people can do whatever they want, but to me its just silly. When you add to that the fact that Valve actively* stops people from playing on custom (i.e. private) servers with modded skins available and it just seems like shitty anti-consumer behavior.
You got really close, but not quite.
Boxes are obtained for free by simply playing the game. You don't really need to buy boxes unless you want some specific one from a past event that is not available through the game anymore, but someone got it back then or if you want boxes at a faster rate than the regular gameplay provides. But you need to buy a key to open it, however.
Also, a given kind of a box contains one of the finite number of items. I think the idea is that if you get a duplicate that you don't want, you can either trade it with a player who doesn't have it for a skin that you want or sell it on the steam marketplace (so you can use that money on a skin that you actually want).
Boxes are obtained for free by simply playing the game. You don't really need to buy boxes unless you want some specific one from a past event that is not available through the game anymore, but someone got it back then or if you want boxes at a faster rate than the regular gameplay provides. But you need to buy a key to open it, however.
Also, a given kind of a box contains one of the finite number of items. I think the idea is that if you get a duplicate that you don't want, you can either trade it with a player who doesn't have it for a skin that you want or sell it on the steam marketplace (so you can use that money on a skin that you actually want).
You need let go of the idea of "coolness", or outwardly directed motivation as the primary/only motivation, and it will make more sense to you. Sure some people want to look cool, but I (and I'd wager many skin buyers), just want a nice looking gun.
I made $130 Steam dollars off of skins without paying a dime. I'd sell the cards that drop from games, buy a skin I liked cheaply (cause I didn't have a lot of money), and sell it when I noticed it going up in value. It was all Monopoly money anyway though - so who cares? I ended up buying a bunch of real life games with fake money that Valve gave me. The skin meta game is a game in itself, and you can play it on the internet away from your gaming pc.
But I don't really get your hangup on this. If you're going to take that stance, it's almost like what's the appeal of anything aesthetic? Some people like it. Do you think it's ridiculous when someone buys the metallic paint option for a car? Or goes with a different graphic on a skateboard? Or chooses a camo pattern jacket instead of a gray one?
But I don't really get your hangup on this. If you're going to take that stance, it's almost like what's the appeal of anything aesthetic? Some people like it. Do you think it's ridiculous when someone buys the metallic paint option for a car? Or goes with a different graphic on a skateboard? Or chooses a camo pattern jacket instead of a gray one?
From my experience, it just feels good to have good-looking assets in the game. I used to buy with my spare money that came from freelancing gigs, so in my head I wasn't really spending any money that I needed, even because it never was a large amount of money, just enough to have some cool skins.
In hindsight, this money could've been better spent, but I won't blame my teenage self for enjoying a little bit of financial freedom.
Of course, you also get those really rich kids that only want to brag, others that buy in order to resell and profit from it, etc.
In hindsight, this money could've been better spent, but I won't blame my teenage self for enjoying a little bit of financial freedom.
Of course, you also get those really rich kids that only want to brag, others that buy in order to resell and profit from it, etc.
> What kind of person thinks its impressive that you've swiped your credit card a few more times then they did, for the same game?
The same kind of person who thinks it’s impressive that you swiped you credit card a few more times than they did for the same society? Rolexes, branded suits, designer dresses, branded smells, it’s all the same. Products that are effectively the same as cheaper alternatives except the are more expensive and carry along with them the awe of someone taking on that higher expense. That is to say, everyone, including you. You just aren’t conscious about it in the contexts where it happens.
Also, “Timmy can’t join our clan, he’s a cheap-ass who can’t even afford the flaming bucket helmet we all wear.” Is a powerful sales pitch.
The same kind of person who thinks it’s impressive that you swiped you credit card a few more times than they did for the same society? Rolexes, branded suits, designer dresses, branded smells, it’s all the same. Products that are effectively the same as cheaper alternatives except the are more expensive and carry along with them the awe of someone taking on that higher expense. That is to say, everyone, including you. You just aren’t conscious about it in the contexts where it happens.
Also, “Timmy can’t join our clan, he’s a cheap-ass who can’t even afford the flaming bucket helmet we all wear.” Is a powerful sales pitch.
CS:GO is the only game I've ever bought skins in. CS is an aesthetically static game and you spend hundreds or thousands of hours staring at the same three or four guns that take up 20% of your screen, so it's an easy call to upgrade the scenery. For me it's exactly the same as buying a deskmat/mousepad with a cool design instead of a pure black one. If I'm going to stare at something everyday I want something that I like looking at.
I get the mindset, that's how I felt before in every other game, but I'd consider my $50 of skins money well spent even if no one else could see them.
I get the mindset, that's how I felt before in every other game, but I'd consider my $50 of skins money well spent even if no one else could see them.
Fashion drives a huge chunk of the global economy. It's not an accomplishment to look fashionable, and people aren't deceived into thinking it is. Looking appealing is the appeal.
they're clothes man. people like to look cool, and spend untold amounts of hours on there, interacting with more people in the game than off the game, often
It's just a flex. Same reason why people get loans to buy nice cars.
I like to think of it as virtual jewelry.
Some people buy expensive watches, cars, clothes etc only to be able to impress other people who care about that sort of thing.
When your circle of friends exist in a game, and they care about that sort of things, you buy this stuff to show off since there's no one around to notice your Rolex.
Some people buy expensive watches, cars, clothes etc only to be able to impress other people who care about that sort of thing.
When your circle of friends exist in a game, and they care about that sort of things, you buy this stuff to show off since there's no one around to notice your Rolex.
Same. I just stick with defaults or freebies in every game.
It is nice to look at things that look nice. It is not that complicated.
At least that is why I buy the occasional skin that looks nice to me.
At least that is why I buy the occasional skin that looks nice to me.
I mean they'll just move their money elsewhere. What's the next big score, though?
Steam doesn't really care about the 'elsewhere' so long as they're not liable for it.
At one point the Domino's app was being used to facilitate credit card fraud: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/06/nyregion/pizza-orders-rev...
At one point the Domino's app was being used to facilitate credit card fraud: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/06/nyregion/pizza-orders-rev...
Oh I'm sure they don't care. I was merely curious where other's thought this stuff will end up.
I never saw that original Domino's article but I can vouch for its complete validity and accuracy. I'm sure carders are still checking CCs on Dominos too. CC checkers are a hot commodity and carders are creative people. RedBox is another good example like Domino's.
Anecdote: In 2008, Obama's donation gateway was also heavily used. I don't believe that was nearly as reported, though.
I never saw that original Domino's article but I can vouch for its complete validity and accuracy. I'm sure carders are still checking CCs on Dominos too. CC checkers are a hot commodity and carders are creative people. RedBox is another good example like Domino's.
Anecdote: In 2008, Obama's donation gateway was also heavily used. I don't believe that was nearly as reported, though.
Was that the Adam Pisces scam that was going on? (Can't tell since NYT is paywalled). There's a great non-paywalled ReplyAll podcast about that (episode #141)
I think that the 'checking stolen CC numbers' is the most convincing theory about Adam Pisces but ultimately the ReplyAll host concluded that it was an attacker looking for vulnerabilities in the Domino's online ordering system.
tl;dr Carders used Domino's to verify the validity of a credit card.
If you read the latest by Neil Stephenson, The Fall, or Dodge in hell (or the earlier Reamde), he completely predicts so many things happening today. Cryptonomicon was like an early business plan for crypto company plan. There is a game like world of warcraft, and ... I don't want to give it away it's so awesome.
Read the books in this order: Cryptonomicon, Reamde, Dodge.
How are people able to convert their Steam balance into real-world cash? Is it even possible?
There are 3rd party sites where you can buy and sell items for cash and crypto. They basically serve as a middleman for expensive trades.
Years ago I bought myself a gaming PC this way, selling all my TF2 and CSGO skins. Yes everyone takes a cut (Valve, trading site, Paypal or whatever payment service you use) but it's still the best way to turn your digital items on Steam into cash
Years ago I bought myself a gaming PC this way, selling all my TF2 and CSGO skins. Yes everyone takes a cut (Valve, trading site, Paypal or whatever payment service you use) but it's still the best way to turn your digital items on Steam into cash
Presumably from third party channels, but keep in mind steam balance can be used to purchase (and I think also gift) games from a storefront that offers the vast majority of modern releases. So it's still pretty useful to have steam balance.
People buy and then sell WoW/runescape gold to launder money as well.
I had over 3k hours on CS:GO and clocked onto this very fast. When they mean fraudulent, I don't think this is carding; due to the fact steam already had measurements in place (i.e. wait 30 days before removal). What you could do is use paypal and make a charge back and steam didn't respond due to their lack of support, meaning you get free keys...
[deleted]
If "almost all" the transactions are fraud, are mobsters just trading with each other? Seems odd. Seems you need to have a minority of fraud for the fraud to work.
Nah -- the people buying the keys on the Steam Community Market are legit. I imagine it's something like this:
Jack Criminal buys a bunch of keys from Valve with dirty money. Possibly Jack Criminal passes the keys off to Jane Criminal's account to muddy the waters. Jane or Jack Criminal puts the keys up for sale on the marketplace. Harry Gamer happily buys the keys.
Every single transaction in that chain involves a criminal, but Harry isn't a criminal and is getting what he wants. The exact quote is "At this point, nearly all key purchases that end up being traded or sold on the marketplace are believed to be fraud-sourced." It's not that every individual transaction cheats someone, it's that they're happening in order to perpetrate an overall fraud.
Jack Criminal buys a bunch of keys from Valve with dirty money. Possibly Jack Criminal passes the keys off to Jane Criminal's account to muddy the waters. Jane or Jack Criminal puts the keys up for sale on the marketplace. Harry Gamer happily buys the keys.
Every single transaction in that chain involves a criminal, but Harry isn't a criminal and is getting what he wants. The exact quote is "At this point, nearly all key purchases that end up being traded or sold on the marketplace are believed to be fraud-sourced." It's not that every individual transaction cheats someone, it's that they're happening in order to perpetrate an overall fraud.
I suppose they count the whole transaction as malicious if one party acts fraudulently
Why do they need to address this? Is it their responsability (or, business) where people get the money to buy the keys? Or what they do with the money from the sales?
Taking money from fraudy credit cards gives you chargebacks and poisons your relationship with payment processors.
Transferring value between people requires a money transmitter license, which in turn requires a credible anti money laundering program.
Transferring value between people requires a money transmitter license, which in turn requires a credible anti money laundering program.
Did you read the full article? Your question is addressed in the second paragraph — the aftermarket for keys was largely used by fraudsters to cash out.
The same applies to gift cards, should they become non-transferrable?
[deleted]
uwotm9(5)
Jeeeeez. A lot of people are going to be screwed over by this. I know a couple people with thousand dollars worth of keys in their accounts. Now worthless. I remember when CSGO trading could be a source of income for some.
edit: I'm dumb. didn't read it through.
edit: I'm dumb. didn't read it through.
From the article:
Pre-existing CS:GO container keys are unaffected–those keys can still be sold on the Steam Community Market and traded.
Pre-existing CS:GO container keys are unaffected–those keys can still be sold on the Steam Community Market and traded.
If anything they are now far more valuable
Not if a chunk of that value was derived from the fraudulent activity that will assumably move elsewhere now.
The statement mentions that this only affects newly purchased keys
They gonna come talk to me about money laundering? On the internet? Shieeeet
Reference: https://youtu.be/6ktvE2vfxSQ?t=69
Reference: https://youtu.be/6ktvE2vfxSQ?t=69
all of that is to say that you aren't going to stop money launderers by cutting liquidity, you do it by identifying their behaviors and blocking them based on that.