Pokémon GO players are expressing widespread frustration after exclusive, perfect-IV Mewtwo specimens—distributed to roughly 2,000 attendees at a private 10th-anniversary event in New York’s Times Square—appeared for sale on eBay. Bidding on these digital assets has reached as high as thousands of dollars, according to reports from IGN, sparking an intense debate over the integrity of the game’s economy and the conduct of Community Ambassadors who received the rare Pokémon.
The Conflict Between Exclusive Rewards and Fair Play
The controversy centers on the distribution of a “hundo” Mewtwo, a Pokémon with perfect statistical potential. According to IGN, developer Scopely had not previously gifted players a Pokémon with guaranteed perfect stats. This move drew immediate criticism, as it coincided with a global Mewtwo Raid weekend where the broader player base was required to invest significant time and premium resources, such as Raid Passes, to pursue the same result.

While the Mewtwo featured a unique Times Square background—a cosmetic distinction—the inclusion of perfect stats shifted the item from a collectible souvenir to a high-value competitive advantage. This has created a stark contrast between those who earned the Pokémon through standard gameplay and those who received it via exclusive access.
Did you know?
The term “flyer” refers to players who illicitly manipulate their device’s GPS data to access locations they are not physically visiting. Many eBay listings for these Mewtwos explicitly mention “flying” as the method for executing the trade, directly violating the game’s terms of service.
Policy Violations and Community Backlash
The resale of these Mewtwos directly contravenes Pokémon GO’s user agreement, which prohibits the sale of accounts or individual Pokémon. Beyond the transaction itself, the reliance on “flying” to complete trades introduces a secondary layer of rule-breaking that has angered the community.
A prominent community member, known on social media as SchaferQuest777, criticized the situation, stating that the actions of these attendees do not reflect well on the Community Ambassador (CA) program. CA members are typically expected to uphold high standards of conduct, as they serve as official liaisons between the player base and Scopely Explore. The sale of these rewards is widely viewed as a betrayal of that trust.
The Future of Event Integrity and Enforcement
With only about 2,000 players present at the Times Square event, the pool of potential violators is limited, which may simplify internal investigations. Players are calling for Scopely to audit the accounts involved in the suspicious trades, particularly those flagged for abnormal geographic movement. As of now, Scopely has not publicly confirmed whether it will take disciplinary action against the accounts involved.

Pro Tips for Identifying Risky Trades
- Check the origin: Be wary of any Pokémon offered for trade that originates from high-profile, gated events.
- Report suspicious activity: Use the in-game reporting tools if you encounter users advertising the sale of Pokémon for real-world currency.
- Beware of “flyers”: Engaging in trades with players who use GPS spoofing puts your own account at risk of being flagged or banned by the developer.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Is it legal to sell Pokémon GO creatures for real money?
- No. Selling Pokémon or accounts is a direct violation of the game’s Terms of Service and can result in a permanent ban.
- What is a “hundo” in Pokémon GO?
- A “hundo” refers to a Pokémon with perfect Individual Values (IVs), meaning its stats in attack, defense, and stamina are all at the maximum level of 15/15/15.
- Will Scopely ban players who sold their event Mewtwo?
- While Scopely has not issued a statement, the community expects the developer to monitor accounts that show evidence of account selling or GPS spoofing.
Have you noticed an increase in account-selling activity in your local community? Share your thoughts in the comments below or join our newsletter for more updates on game integrity and developer policies.
Related reading