Coordinated reporting — especially of financial accounts — can sharply erode the profitability of AI-enhanced scams because reporting rate, centralization and accuracy multiply to cut victims per channel; even modest gains across all three can force scammers to scale costly infrastructure to sustain profits.

Main Finding

A simple analytic model shows that three levers—reporting rate, centralization of reporting, and report accuracy (ban threshold)—multiply in their effect on expected victims per scam channel. Because these effects compound, modest improvements across multiple levers (especially centralized reporting focused on financial infrastructure) can substantially reduce revenue per channel, raise scammers’ infrastructure costs, and in many cases make AI-enhanced scams far less profitable.

Key Points

• Context and motivation
  • Scams caused an estimated $442B in direct losses globally in 2025; U.S. reported losses rose ~400% from 2020 to 2025 (reported figures likely undercount real losses).
  • Chainalysis estimated AI-enabled scams are ~4.5× more profitable than non-AI scams, because AI raises believability and cuts engagement costs.
• Model summary
  • Scammer revenue = ℓ · (expected victims per channel E[S]) · m (channels). Cost ≈ κ · m (only infrastructure costs are counted; engagement costs assumed negligible with AI).
  • Key parameters: s (per-lure conversion probability → victim), r (per-lure reporting probability), t (number of reports to ban a channel), n (lures per channel), m (channels), κ (price per channel), ℓ (loss per victim).
  • Under assumptions (independent binomial conversions and reports; Poisson approximations), the optimal lures per channel n ≈ λ(t)/r and the maximal expected victims per channel E*(s,r,t) ≈ (s t / r) · e^{-δ(t)} with 0 ≤ δ(t) ≤ 1.
  • Introducing a centralization factor c (probability a report reaches the relevant authority) effectively multiplies r → c r, so E*(s,c,r,t) ≈ s t c r e^{-δ(t)}.
• Multiplicative effects and examples
  • Changes to s, r (or c), and t combine multiplicatively in their effect on revenue per channel. Example: s′ = s/2, r′ = 2r, t′ = t/2 yields at least an 8× revenue reduction per channel.
  • If revenue per channel falls by factor A, scammers must scale channels m′ ≥ A · m to restore profits (assuming channel price κ unchanged). If supply of channels is inelastic, prices rise and restoring profits becomes costly or infeasible.
• Relative leverage of interventions
  • Increasing reporting and centralization are high-leverage levers.
  • Reducing false-positive rates (allowing lower ban thresholds) is a weaker lever: effects enter only logarithmically in required threshold changes.
  • Educating potential victims (reducing s) is useful but operationally harder and likely less effective than building reporting systems.
• Target choice: financial vs communication infrastructure
  • Communication channels (phone numbers, social accounts) are relatively cheap and replaceable; supply is more elastic.
  • Financial/money‑laundering accounts are costly and harder to replace; supply is more inelastic. Reporting these is far more effective.
  • Empirical/quoted facts: fraud intelligence shows financial accounts are revealed to victims after ~70 messages; black‑market prices for validated financial accounts can reach hundreds of dollars; phone-verified Gmail ≈ $1, SIM verifications ≈ $0.26 — i.e., communication infra is cheap to replace.
• Practical policy implications the paper emphasizes
  • Prioritize building and publicizing a centralized reporting repository (centralization c).
  • Encourage reporting (raise r) and focus reporting tools and channels on financial infrastructure.
  • Reduce false positives where feasible to lower effective ban thresholds (t), but recognize diminishing returns.
  • Combined modest improvements across these levers can dramatically reduce AI-enhanced scam profitability.

Data & Methods

• Type of study: theoretical / analytic modeling with illustrative numeric examples; proofs and derivations in appendices.
• Core assumptions
  • Worst-case (for defenders) assumption that AI reduces marginal engagement costs to ≈0; only channel acquisition costs κ are modeled.
  • Independent and identically distributed conversions and reports per lure; binomial and Poisson approximations used.
  • Platforms ban channels after t reports (threshold rule).
• Mathematical approach
  • Analyzed expected victims per channel E[S] as function of s, r, t, n (number of lures); optimized n to find n and E.
  • Used Poisson approximation to simplify binomial tail calculations and derive λ*(t).
  • Extended model with centralization factor c (probability a user report reaches the relevant authority) → effective reporting rate c r.
  • Derived relation between false positive tolerance (target false-positive probability p_fp), expected false reports µ, and minimal threshold t using Poisson tail bounds and the Lambert W function (Lemma provides a bound).
• Empirical anchors and illustrative numbers (from literature cited in paper)
  • Global and U.S. loss estimates (GASA, other reports).
  • Chainalysis estimate that AI-enabled scams are 4.5× more profitable.
  • Data on replacement costs and black‑market prices for channels (Gmail, SIM verifications, financial accounts).
  • Survey stat: 36% of respondents didn’t report a scam because they didn’t know where to report (GASA 2026).
• Limitations acknowledged by the author
  • Costs are under-estimated (excludes laundering fees, payoff to corrupt actors, physical infrastructure, labor, etc.).
  • Model abstracts away heterogeneity in victims, channels, and attacker strategies; assumes identical per-lure probabilities and independent events.
  • Focuses on asymptotic/qualitative effects rather than precise numeric forecasts.

Implications for AI Economics

• AI amplifies the underlying economics of scams by increasing conversion rates and lowering engagement costs, shifting the binding constraints toward infrastructure acquisition and survivability (channel bans).
• Economic levers to counter AI-enabled harms are infrastructure-focused: raising the effective cost of scarce (inelastic) inputs—chiefly financial onboarding and laundering accounts—can change return-on-investment calculations for scammers.
• Centralized reporting is a public-good infrastructure whose value is multiplicative when combined with improved reporting incentives; investing in such data aggregation can produce outsized reductions in illicit returns.
• Market effects: raising demand for scarce, vetted financial accounts (if reporting forces scammers to buy more/replace more) will increase black‑market prices and potentially shrink attacker margins; the degree of impact depends on elasticity of supply in illicit markets.
• Policy prioritization: interventions that reduce seller-side or platform frictions (centralized reporting, lower false positives, automated cross-platform takedowns focused on financial endpoints) are likely to be more cost‑effective than broad victim education campaigns, particularly in an environment where AI increases scam believability.
• Research and measurement needs: to translate these qualitative gains into policy targets, we need better empirical estimates of s, r, c, t, κ and supply elasticities in both legitimate and illicit markets; the model provides a framework for evaluating how measured changes in those parameters would affect harms and attacker supply responses.

Reference: Kyle Fredrickson, "Effective Interventions Against AI-Enhanced Scams", Quarry Intelligence, arXiv:2609.00806v1 (2026).