TACO recounts match-fixing offer during MIBR period

Epitácio “TACO” de Melo said he received an offer to deliberately lose a match when he was playing for MIBR. The veteran Counter-Strike player described the episode during an appearance on the Flow Podcast, as reported by draft5. According to TACO, the approach happened while MIBR were in China to play a tournament against EG.

TACO said the initial conversation was presented as a discussion about streaming on a Chinese platform. He recalled agreeing to talk after being told that the platform wanted MIBR to stream there. During that meeting, he said, the person changed the subject and asked what he wanted in exchange for losing the following day’s match.

The player said he immediately rejected the offer, thanked the person and left the conversation. TACO did not identify the tournament in which the match took place. The report states that MIBR went on to win the game against EG.

The account is primary-source information from TACO’s own retelling of an alleged approach. His description identifies the setting, the teams involved and his response, but it does not provide the name of the person who made the offer, the tournament name, an amount, or further details about the proposed arrangement.

TACO’s wording placed the alleged proposal before a match that MIBR were scheduled to play the next day. He said the conversation began with a streaming proposal before the alleged request to lose the match was made. That sequence is important because the report presents the streaming topic as the route through which the meeting was arranged, not as evidence that the platform itself was involved in the alleged offer.

TACO describes the approach in China

TACO said MIBR were set to play EG during a tournament in China. Speaking on the Flow Podcast, he described being invited to sit down and talk with someone before the match.

After taking a seat, TACO said he was asked, “How much do you want to lose tomorrow’s game?” He said he thanked the person, said goodbye, and left.

TACO did not disclose which tournament the match belonged to. MIBR won the game. He also said he believes match fixing remains common in competitive Counter-Strike, including among smaller Brazilian teams.

• Documented setting: TACO said the alleged approach occurred in China while MIBR were due to play EG in a tournament.
• Documented method of contact: he said the conversation began with a proposal involving streams on a Chinese platform.
• Documented response: TACO said he rejected the request to lose, left the meeting, and MIBR later won the match.

TACO also gave his view on match fixing beyond the episode he described. He said he believes suspicious situations have occurred frequently in Counter-Strike competition, particularly in Brazil. He added that, in general, he considers such conduct more common at lower levels of competition.

That assessment is TACO’s stated opinion and should be kept separate from the specific account involving MIBR and EG. The report does not provide a list of Brazilian matches, teams, players, or cases to establish the broader concern he raised. It records his belief that smaller teams have at times chosen to lose matches.

The report adds historical context by noting that Denis “seized” Kostin, formerly of Natus Vincere, had previously said that he also received offers to lose a match. According to the report, seized’s account included an offer connected to a CS:GO Major. This is presented as another player account, not as further detail about TACO’s reported meeting in China.

What the report confirms and leaves unnamed

The available evidence supports a narrow chronology. TACO said he travelled with MIBR to a tournament in China, where the team were set to meet EG. He said a person first raised a possible streaming arrangement, then asked about payment for losing the next match. TACO said he refused and departed from the conversation.

The result mentioned in the report is also limited: MIBR won the game. No score, map information, roster details, tournament title, or date is supplied. The report likewise does not state whether the person returned with another offer or whether any formal complaint followed the encounter.

TACO’s remarks provide a direct player account of an alleged match-fixing proposal, while his comments about lower-tier competition and Brazil remain his own assessment. The reference to seized supplies earlier Counter-Strike context from another player, but the report does not connect that separate account to the MIBR versus EG match.

TACO’s account centers on an alleged request made before an MIBR match against EG in China. He said he rejected it immediately, and the reported match result was an MIBR win. The tournament and the person involved were not named.

His comments also included a broader personal view that match fixing can occur more often in lower levels of Counter-Strike competition, including in Brazil. The report’s additional reference to seized places TACO’s account alongside another previously reported player allegation, without establishing any connection between the two situations.