Every ad network claims great fraud detection. Few explain how it works, what it catches, or why certain traffic was flagged. This opacity isnt accidental - its a feature that benefits networks at buyers expense.

The Centralized Antifraud Problem

In traditional networks, antifraud works like this:

Network has internal fraud detection
Rules and thresholds are secret
Traffic is flagged or passed
Buyer sees: "X impressions rejected for fraud"
No detail on what specifically was caught

Why This Is Problematic

Unverifiable Claims

When a network says "we blocked 30% fraud," you have no way to verify:

Was it actually fraud?
What signals triggered rejection?
Are false positives included?
Is the network inflating fraud numbers to seem protective?

One-Size-Fits-All

Different campaigns have different fraud tolerances:

Brand awareness can tolerate some bot impressions
CPA campaigns need strict filtering
App installs have specific fraud patterns

Centralized systems apply the same rules to everyone.

Conflict of Interest

Networks profit from volume. Aggressive fraud detection reduces volume. Theres inherent tension between fraud prevention and revenue.

No Second Opinion

If you disagree with a fraud determination, tough luck. The networks judgment is final.

The Decentralized Alternative

PopTrade takes a fundamentally different approach:

Buyer-Controlled Detection

You configure your own antifraud settings:

Strictness level - How aggressive filtering should be
Signal weights - Which fraud indicators matter most to you
Thresholds - What score triggers rejection

Transparent Signals

You see exactly why traffic was flagged:

WebDriver detected (automation)
Time-to-event too fast (bot behavior)
Geo mismatch (proxy/VPN)
Device fingerprint anomaly

External Provider Choice

Dont trust any single fraud detector? Use multiple:

Enable IPQualityScore for IP reputation
Add Pixalate for MRC-accredited detection
Include Fraudlogix for bot detection
Compare results across providers

Soft Reject Option

Not sure about borderline traffic? Soft reject means:

You dont pay for it
But it goes to fallback (not wasted)
You can analyze patterns
Publisher isnt punished unfairly

Why Multiple Providers Matter

Different Specializations

No single provider catches everything:

IPQualityScore - Strong on proxy/VPN detection
Pixalate - Strong on invalid traffic classification
HUMAN - Strong on sophisticated bots

Layering providers creates comprehensive coverage.

Validation Through Consensus

When multiple independent systems flag the same traffic, confidence increases. When they disagree, you have data to investigate.

Avoiding Single Point of Failure

If one providers detection degrades, others catch what they miss.

The Control You Get

Strictness Levels

Low - Only block obvious fraud, maximize volume
Medium - Balance protection and reach
High - Aggressive filtering, prioritize quality

Custom Rules

Block specific IP ranges
Reject traffic below time-to-event threshold
Filter by ASN (datacenter vs residential)
Geographic mismatch sensitivity

Provider Selection

Choose which external providers to enable
Weight their scores in final decision
Compare provider performance over time

Transparency Creates Trust

When you can see and control antifraud:

No suspicion - You know exactly whats happening
No disputes - You set the rules, you own the outcome
Continuous improvement - Adjust based on what you learn
Fair to publishers - They can see rejection reasons too

The Industry Shift

Centralized antifraud made sense when:

Fraud detection was expensive to run
Buyers lacked technical sophistication
External providers didnt exist

None of these are true anymore. Buyers deserve control over their own fraud protection, not black-box promises from networks with conflicting incentives.

The question isnt whether a network has antifraud - they all claim to. The question is whether you can see it, control it, and verify it. If not, youre just trusting - and trust without verification is how fraud thrives.

Decentralized Antifraud vs 'Trust Us': Why Buyer-Controlled Fraud Detection Matters