Top
Best
New

Posted by mlenhard 6 hours ago

The relay market powering token resellers and fraud(vectoral.com)
128 points | 67 comments
wtobey1 3 hours ago|
I spent years working on financial integrity at a large ads company and this isn't novel at all! The same resale markets are at play for the last generation of internet giant's products. Highly sophisticated actors, able to cobble together impressions through abuse of the billing systems, stolen financial instruments, taken over accounts, etc, create massive markets of discounted impressions for resale. It was very interesting to compete against them as we hardened our defenses and they invented new ways to exploit them. I imagine the same defensive tools and techniques are being deployed by my former colleagues who moved to the labs.
namanyayg 4 hours ago||
One aspect that seems to be missing is the abuse of the free credits provided for new companies by AWS, Azure, and other providers.

I know of a friend's company in India who purchased inference, at 4% of the actual price and states that it gave him an unbeatable competitive edge in their large running video influence pipelines. Any new competitors could not offer their pricing at all.

Primarily that operated because registering a new company getting free AWS credits was a very tiny cost

mlenhard 4 hours ago||
I was going to cover this in a follow-up article, but yeah, there are network of token brokers who buy unused credits from startups and then resell them.
juleiie 3 hours ago|||
Video influence pipelines from India huh?

No wonder social media is so shit nowadays. All that brainwashing and propaganda from third world countries, now at 4% the price!

4848488448 3 hours ago||
the in India wasnt even needed no worries
ac2u 3 hours ago|||
Some countries have more complexity to registering a new company than others, and perhaps it’s the establishment of a new legal entity that is an unlocker to the free credits.

I don’t know if that’s true of India or not, but I like to give comment authors the benefit of the doubt that being specific about the geography was helpful context here

manquer 57 minutes ago||
India is very bureaucratic and slow for starting a new business new entity. It ranked 63rd on the most recent world bank survey of 2020[1], and it is even more painful to close one.

[1 ]https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/130...

cannonpr 16 minutes ago||
So that report was discontinued after relatively proven statistical gaming and interference by several countries, doesn’t exist post 2020. Post 2020 SPICE+ launched making registration trivially fast. However really the trick isn’t creating and closing companies, it’s that the fact majority of reporting that would catch scam companies like these just get ignored and gather small civil penalties payable years later or not at all, while keeping up with major reporting that might close their bank accounts… it’s a very disorganised system that facilitates a lot of unpleasant activity.
cumshitpiss 3 hours ago|||
[dead]
ifwinterco 1 hour ago||
It's the same fundamental problem as "ticket touting" for popular events - if you sell something that's in demand at a price that's far lower than the clearing price of the market, you're creating a juicy arbitrage opportunity that sooner or later somebody is going to try and exploit
tancop 1 hour ago||
the way i see it there are 3 types of resellers. the ones using fake credit cards to rack up costs and then cancel the card are doing actual fraud. then you got mass free trial abuse which is more of a gray area and i would say its still wrong. but if you sign up for a subscription, pay for it and resell your monthly tokens thats not at all unethical, even if its breaking their terms and costing the provider money.

imagine ford starts renting out company cars at a huge discount so they can get people to buy the same model for themselves after they drive it at work. its the exact same car and costs the same amount to make, they just take a loss on it and use by anyone other than employees is banned in the contract.

some small company realizes they dont really use their cars that much so they rent them out again for 3 days a week to get some extra cash. is that fraud? it costs ford nothing because they get the same payments either way, they just lose potential profits. they are the ones who decided to set up a loss leader and take the risk of someone "abusing" the system so we dont need to use public resources to defend their strategy. that wastes taxpayer money to protect corporate profits, and it creates moral hazard because ford (anthropic) is not the one paying for enforcement.

miohtama 21 minutes ago|||
Instead of credit card, prepaid stablecoin purchases would solve the problem. No chargebacks.
benlivengood 4 hours ago||
The real problem is subscription models. Businesses want recurring revenue so they try to game the ratio of fixed subscription prices to COGS but it's always a game and so whoever can figure out the upside for the company can figure out the complementary upside for themselves.

How would one even word a bulletproof subscription contract for agentic tokens, anyway? You can't forbid automation because sub-agents are automation. You could forbid "using tokens for the benefit of more than the human who signed up" but then what do families (especially with kids) need to do? What if your friend asks you a question and you turn to a chat model? Forbidding "reselling" tokens outside of a household sounds like the closest terms but that's leaky for anyone who travels a lot, etc.

Fixed cost per token simply works.

Aurornis 1 hour ago||
The abuse is factored in to pricing and quota structure.

I have some past experience with subscription plans for a much less interesting product. Abuse is inevitable. As you do your math on the subscription costs you look at the actual usage across all accounts, which includes the abuse.

Cleaning up abuse was still a priority because it meant we could give more service to the real customers. It's a frustrating battle because you actually want to give good service to the real customers, but you also want to let each account do as they please with their susbcription. That latter priority probably fades fast for something like an LLM company when you discover that the abuse has become automated and is scaling up so fast that it's tilting the math toward degrading service for everyone.

> Fixed cost per token simply works.

As a consumer, I benefit greatly from the subscription rates. There's a lot of grumbling about how they should go to fixed token for everyone but I'm over hear happy with the subscription plan offerings while they last.

jwsteigerwalt 2 minutes ago|||
Tokens are becoming a hard commodity. Subscriptions don’t work with hard commodities. Subscriptions work fine where fixed costs/capital investment are massive and service delivery is negligible. Think car washes and Netflix. The marginal cost of adding an additional subscriber to a streaming platform or a monthly car was membership is negligible. While there was substantial capital investment to generate the models, we are learning that the service delivery cost of tokens is real.
miohtama 23 minutes ago|||
There is a reason the Max plan gets only so few Fable tokens per week.
PunchyHamster 4 hours ago||
> How would one even word a bulletproof subscription contract for agentic tokens, anyway? You can't forbid automation because sub-agents are automation. You could forbid "using tokens for the benefit of more than the human who signed up" but then what do families (especially with kids) need to do? What if your friend asks you a question and you turn to a chat model? Forbidding "reselling" tokens outside of a household sounds like the closest terms but that's leaky for anyone who travels a lot, etc.

reverse the pricing structure; give modest discount once you go over certain amount of tokens, then you are incentivized NOT to start multiple accounts.

require first few transactions to be pre-paid to get around at least some of the card problems.

Of course, that would fuck over subsidized plans, but I don't see any option to keep them if you want to avoid the flood

nfbdhdfbf 3 hours ago||
> You can't forbid automation because sub-agents are automation.

Is this some kind of attempt to make the other side look better by making the worst argument you can?

PunchyHamster 21 minutes ago||
....ask the original poster not me ? I just quoted him
grinich 3 hours ago||
This is the problem we've been working on solving with WorkOS Radar. We run it for Cursor and a bunch of other AI companies who have a free trial that gives some free inference to test the product.

It turns out to be a pretty complex program to solve at scale. Token fraud is a lucrative market and the adversaries are surprisingly sophisticated. It's a cat-and-mouse game, accelerated with AI.

https://workos.com/radar

(If you'd like to work on this, we are hiring :))

mlenhard 2 hours ago|
I don't think device fingerprinting is the right approach here.

Client-side detection can always be sidestepped, and you need to intermediate the actual inference to get enough signals to make an accurate prediction. There are hundreds of listings for cursor tokens/credits right now.

We use canary values to detect the resellers, and I believe that's the only approach that will actually work at scale.

nojs 1 hour ago||
Seems to be an LLM megaexpansion of the actual source (in chinese): https://www.v2ex.com/t/1196011
blfr 3 hours ago||
How do the users know they're getting what they're paying for?

I disabled automatic downgrading/rerouting because it sometimes takes me a second to tell when the answer came from a different model than I wanted. You could easily sell Opus as Fable for a good while.

gruez 2 hours ago|
You can't, it's all reputation based. Similar to whether drug users don't really know what they got were diluted or not.
simonw 2 hours ago||
This is pretty fascinating!

Here are the two open source proxies listed in the article: https://github.com/songquanpeng/one-api and https://github.com/QuantumNous/new-api

robluxus 5 hours ago|
> For example, one operator’s price-comparison site listed a package that bought the equivalent of $3,333 worth of official Anthropic credit for 425 RMB — roughly $0.13 of usage per $1 spent.

Do these numbers make sense? $0.13 usage per $1 spent?

zaltekk 5 hours ago||
I think this was very poorly worded. I believe they’re trying to say you pay the reseller $0.13 to get what costs $1 at the upstream provider.
mmoskal 5 hours ago|||
Also 425 RMB is about $59 so $1 of tokens for $0.017 not $0.13 (the discount rate quoted also seems off).
kristjansson 3 hours ago||
seems like they missed a zero somewhere. its a dollar of usage for a penny and change.
mlenhard 5 hours ago|||
Yeah, I should probably clean this up. The sentence is a bit hard to understand. What I was trying to show was the steep discounts offered by resellers.
jagged-chisel 5 hours ago||
So $1 of usage for $0.13?
SyneRyder 2 hours ago||
That sounds entirely plausible. When I was on the Claude Max $100 plan, I would often get the equivalent of at least $1300 API usage, according to the costs counter in Claude Code. That would be about $1 of usage for every $0.075c.

At $1 of usage for $0.13, the reseller is making a tidy profit on top of whatever subscriptions they're reselling.

latchkey 5 hours ago||
If you are using a stolen credit card to buy tokens and resell them, then the cost per token is the amount the credit card cost you (and building/running the proxy service), not the value of the tokens themselves.
More comments...