> The only winning strategy was to just not deal with them at all. A pattern I've seen in business is similar: when there's a bad actor who is able to pay exor

> The only winning strategy was to just not deal with them at all. A pattern I've seen in business is similar: when there's a bad actor who is able to pay exorbitant amounts for user acquisition, but then offers a bad product/experience, it's a losing startup strategy to go compete by offering a better product/experience. Just avoid that particular market / niche / channel entirely. The bad guys who are paying a super-high CAC and still successfully monetizing it are going to outspend you, and the customers who keep taking the bait from the bad guys have already signaled that they can't be reached. So anytime you (as a startup) see the equivalent of "quick weight loss pills" being hawked successfully through some channel, and your product is "eat right and exercise," go around that trap and not through it. Otherwise the bad guys will drive you broke as you throw pearls before swine. The major qualifier here might be that big incumbents, NGOs, or governments should not necessarily ignore these bad guys. Not what I'm saying. Just that if you are a good guy with limited money, attacking a profitable channel dominated by bad guys is a losing strategy.