Prop Firm Hub | Page 842 | Metals Mine

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Anyone trading with a Prop firm 31 replies

So I accepted a Prop Trading job in South Beach Miami 44 replies

prop firm new model - my trading journey 871 replies

Attachments: Prop Firm Hub
Exit Attachments

Prop Firm Hub

  • #16,821
  • Jun 20, 2023 1:39pm Jun 20, 2023 1:39pm
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-This will likely depend on their privacy policy. Even if MFFX privacy policy does not allow for sharing of data for this specific reasoning, a 3rd-party firm may not have such a policy, and could easily share your data with MFFX upon request. As an example, here is an excerpt from TFTP privacy policy: Sharing Information with Third Parties The Funded Trader may sell, rent, or lease customer information to third parties for the following reasons: ... The Funded Trader may disclose your personal information, without notice, if required to...
Thats not how this works if you are an EU citizen. Consent must be sent explicitly to the user if data needs to be shared, and the user must explicitly consent to share this data. Hiding the intention to share data on demand in a T&C contract does not have legal standing under the rules of GDPR. Its actually mentioned in the ruling of GDPR that even if a company declares that they can share data in T&C it still is not regarded as explicit consent.
  • #16,822
  • Jun 20, 2023 1:40pm Jun 20, 2023 1:40pm
Quoting Capablanca
Regarding all the drama in telegram about MFFx not paying a guy, this is what I undestood: 1. He is accused of having reversed trades between firm. The proof provided is this: {image} 2. Trades are a bit apart. One account is funded in MFFx and the other account (in the hidden prop) is a challenge. 3. Matt has been roasted by a lot of people so he added several thigs: 3.1 The guy is blacklisted at 8 firms 3.2 When asked how does MFFx knows that he said "broker blacklist" I'm not sure if Takisd can...
Finally Matt came, lol ! He was put in trouble by certain members of the group and had great difficulty in justifying himself. The trades weren't even taken at the same time...
  • #16,823
  • Jun 20, 2023 1:42pm Jun 20, 2023 1:42pm
Quoting Capablanca
Regarding all the drama in telegram about MFFx not paying a guy, this is what I undestood: 1. He is accused of having reversed trades between firm. The proof provided is this: {image} 2. Trades are a bit apart. One account is funded in MFFx and the other account (in the hidden prop) is a challenge. 3. Matt has been roasted by a lot of people so he added several thigs: 3.1 The guy is blacklisted at 8 firms 3.2 When asked how does MFFx knows that he said "broker blacklist" I'm not sure if Takisd can...
Not very profitable to hedge like that as the total loss was over $1500. Trades should also have opened and closed exactly at the same time if this was some kind of a 2-leg arb.
  • #16,824
  • Jun 20, 2023 1:43pm Jun 20, 2023 1:43pm
Quoting OranJuice
Thats not how this works if you are an EU citizen.
-Maybe not, but unless these firms are operating within EU jurisdiction and/or subject to the same regulatory laws/requirements, then the argument is moot, no?
  • #16,825
  • Jun 20, 2023 1:43pm Jun 20, 2023 1:43pm
Quoting Capablanca
Looking at FXIFY it's my impression or these guys are basically returning the fee after phase 2 ? I'm saying this because "The first withdrawal can be requested on demand(24 hours after placing your first trade)". So, if someone passes phase 2, my distorted mind tells me that we just need to place a 0.01 (or so) trade that get positive. This would result in a payout + refund fee (I'm not sure if there is minimum to request a payout though), which means fee refund basically after phase 2. Am I missing anything ?
I asked the support and they confirmed that : profit of 0.01 the first day is sufficient for ask the first payout and get the refund. Sounds pretty nice !
  • #16,826
  • Jun 20, 2023 1:44pm Jun 20, 2023 1:44pm
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-Maybe not, but unless these firms are operating within EU jurisdiction and/or subject to the same regulatory laws/requirements, then the argument is moot, no?
No, when a company offers services to EU citizens they are obliged by international laws to abide by EU rules and regulations, which among many other things, include the adherence to GDPR rulings.
  • #16,827
  • Jun 20, 2023 1:48pm Jun 20, 2023 1:48pm
Quoting OranJuice
No, when a company offers services to EU citizens they are obliged by international laws to abide by EU rules and regulations
-Only if reciprocity, treaties/agreements etc. exist between the two countries. If this were not the case, then we would see offshore brokers getting tanked by CFTC and SEC etc..
  • #16,828
  • Jun 20, 2023 2:00pm Jun 20, 2023 2:00pm
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-Only if reciprocity, treaties/agreements etc. exist between the two countries. If this were not the case, then we would see offshore brokers getting tanked by CFTC and SEC etc..
The GDPR, as a matter of law, applies to any company processing personal data of EU residents, regardless of the company's location. This is outlined in Article 3 of the GDPR which provides a territorial scope that is not based on reciprocity or bilateral agreements.

As for the enforcement, the European Data Protection Board can issue fines and sanctions for non-compliance. While enforcing these fines outside of the EU can be challenging, the EU has mechanisms to facilitate this, including mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs). Furthermore, any company doing business in the EU would face reputational damage and potential loss of access to the European market in the event of a serious GDPR violation.

Regarding the comparison to offshore brokers, it's important to note that financial regulations such as those enforced by the CFTC and SEC are different from data protection laws. Financial regulations are typically concerned with the stability of financial systems and the protection of investors, whereas data protection laws are concerned with the rights of individuals over their personal data.

So if an American company is processing the personal data of EU residents, it is indeed obliged to adhere to the GDPR. The application of GDPR is not contingent upon the existence of reciprocity or bilateral treaties, but rather the activity of processing personal data of EU residents.
  • #16,829
  • Jun 20, 2023 2:12pm Jun 20, 2023 2:12pm
Quoting OranJuice
The application of GDPR is not contingent upon the existence of reciprocity or bilateral treaties, but rather the activity of processing personal data of EU residents.
-"Prospects of GDPR enforcement is diminished significantly in a non-EU jurisdiction with no comparable data protection regulations and no agreement with the European Commission such as the Privacy Shield. The question then becomes whether extraterritorial regulations are enforced in such jurisdiction by local courts, where they consider idiosyncratic public policy concerns, analogous local data protection regulations, and any relevant agreement with the EU (e.g. Memorandum of Understanding).[21] In conclusion, no fines have been issued yet. And it is highly unlikely that fines will be issued against non-EU entities lacking EU representation. Issuing fines against potentially unreachable entities might undermine the severity of the message the EU is sending to data controllers and processors in implementing legislation such as GDPR. Rather, the more predictable event, and following a sound policy, is imposing fines against internationally-known and massive actors whom are conclusively under EU jurisdiction to strengthen enforcement efforts and GDPR’s perceived reach." -Source.

As previously mentioned, a 3rd-party firm could have shared data with MFFX. Who knows. Also, Privacy Shield in the US is a voluntary registration.
  • #16,830
  • Jun 20, 2023 2:22pm Jun 20, 2023 2:22pm
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-"Prospects of GDPR enforcement is diminished significantly in a non-EU jurisdiction with no comparable data protection regulations and no agreement with the European Commission such as the Privacy Shield. The question then becomes whether extraterritorial regulations are enforced in such jurisdiction by local courts, where they consider idiosyncratic public policy concerns, analogous local data protection regulations, and any relevant agreement with the EU (e.g. Memorandum of Understanding).[21]...
While your perspective is indeed insightful, it seems to slightly misinterpret the scope and the intention behind the GDPR. Yes, it's true that enforcing GDPR fines against non-EU entities can be challenging and may depend on a variety of factors including local data protection laws and agreements with the EU. However, the absence of past enforcement does not negate the existing legal obligation.




The GDPR explicitly states in Article 3 that it applies to any organization, regardless of its location, that offers goods or services to, or monitors the behavior of, EU data subjects. Hence, it's not about the physical location of the entity, but rather about whether it's processing data of EU residents.

The fact that no fines may have been issued yet against non-EU entities lacking EU representation does not negate their legal obligation under the GDPR. This lack of enforcement could simply be due to a variety of practical or strategic reasons, and not because the obligation doesn't exist.

As to the point of undermining the severity of GDPR, it's the opposite. Issuing fines against unreachable entities, even if ultimately unenforceable, sends a clear message about the EU's commitment to data protection.

The key issue here is the processing of personal data of EU residents. If a US-based company processes such data, it falls under the jurisdiction of the GDPR. It is in the best interest of the company to adhere to these regulations not only to avoid potential fines but also to maintain a good reputation and trust among its EU customers.

You mentioned the Privacy Shield as an agreement enabling enforcement. However, this framework was invalidated by the EU Court of Justice in 2020, emphasizing the need for any data transfer mechanism to provide a level of protection essentially equivalent to that under the GDPR.

Moreover, I find it very unprobable that a 3:rd party shares personal data with MFFX that just so happens to be the exact user that MFFX is in need of more information from. In my opinion MFFX has violated the privacy rights of the user.
  • #16,831
  • Jun 20, 2023 2:31pm Jun 20, 2023 2:31pm
Quoting pipmaster77
One of the things I DO LOVE about the 5%ers, posted right in their terms: The5ers is aware of the regulatory requirements in the US, and it operates by a restrictive legal advisory to fully fulfill the US law and regulatory requirements. The full document will be provided to any official enforcement organization of the US authorities by official and authorized requests to [email protected] ("[email protected]"). Now that they have an offering that actualy has value to the trader, I might give them a go again. My gut tells me not to add any...
Why you not taking TFTP or TFF programs? because the CFCT and SEC thing, what about european traders you still advice taking challenges with them, i was buying a TFF challenge next
  • #16,832
  • Jun 20, 2023 2:32pm Jun 20, 2023 2:32pm
Quoting OranJuice
While your perspective is indeed insightful, it seems to slightly misinterpret the scope and the intention behind the GDPR.
-I've really no interest to argue with you about this. At the end of the day, the EU could say that their laws are enforceable everywhere, but good luck enforcing them everywhere. The fact remains, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to prove that MFFX breached any privacy laws anyway. Your opinion doesn't matter in court.

Quoting OranJuice
Yes, it's true that enforcing GDPR fines against non-EU entities can be challenging and may depend on a variety of factors including local data protection laws and agreements with the EU.
-Very good.
  • #16,833
  • Jun 20, 2023 2:51pm Jun 20, 2023 2:51pm
Shitty mobile unfriendly FF I’m in transit.

the way that mffx TFT and all the other shitty 8cap think markets purple trading companies know if u r long short between companies is that they all use the same shitty out of the box solution.

it’s an amazing strategy to do but costs about 4K to do it effectively and it games the prop firms randomly.

the dodge gdpr because the external provider doesn’t disclose where they are trading the other side just that they are. And so the company can’t actually legally provide evidence as they would break European laws. If the user isn’t European then it has to be in the agreement somewhere to break privacy rules. It probably is if you search deep enough.

but all these firms need to burn it’s like a mega ponzi
  • #16,834
  • Jun 20, 2023 2:55pm Jun 20, 2023 2:55pm
Btw other than ftmo MFF e8 tff and 5ers, everyone else that matters is sharing that data via a provider
  • #16,835
  • Jun 20, 2023 3:26pm Jun 20, 2023 3:26pm
Quoting Vibezinho
{quote} Why you not taking TFTP or TFF programs? because the CFCT and SEC thing, what about european traders you still advice taking challenges with them, i was buying a TFF challenge next
No, nothing to do with regulation. TFF- I do not like the way they handled an issue they had several weeks back......where all of the firms I work with rectify problems, they basically told traders to f** off, they are not responsible for THEIR OWN server issues. TFTP- don't have their own feed, 8cap sucks, they are constantly marketing, just seems like a money grab and I suspect from reliable sources they set up new firms to feed the old one.
I will continue using what I have, however, I believe these 2 will be swapped for E8 and possibly the 5%ers (CHALLENGE MODEL ONLY)
Of course, FTMO and MFF have always been and continue to be rock solid for me as well.
  • #16,836
  • Jun 20, 2023 3:48pm Jun 20, 2023 3:48pm
Quoting Nehemah
{quote} Finally Matt came, lol ! He was put in trouble by certain members of the group and had great difficulty in justifying himself. The trades weren't even taken at the same time...
And apparently one of them was a funded account and the other was a challenge...

Not sure how true is what he said but this is an easy way to fabricate a ban of some winning trader.

So, we need to milk MFFx the most we can, knowing that at any moment we may have problems.

I always have the principle that behind a public claim there are many more silent claims...
  • #16,837
  • Jun 20, 2023 4:04pm Jun 20, 2023 4:04pm
Quoting Capablanca
{quote} And apparently one of them was a funded account and the other was a challenge... Not sure how true is what he said but this is an easy way to fabricate a ban of some winning trader. So, we need to milk MFFx the most we can, knowing that at any moment we may have problems. I always have the principle that behind a public claim there are many more silent claims...
system bug, abort abort.
  • #16,838
  • Jun 20, 2023 4:29pm Jun 20, 2023 4:29pm
Quoting Capablanca
{quote} And apparently one of them was a funded account and the other was a challenge... Not sure how true is what he said but this is an easy way to fabricate a ban of some winning trader. So, we need to milk MFFx the most we can, knowing that at any moment we may have problems. I always have the principle that behind a public claim there are many more silent claims...
I seriously dont understand whats the issue? It is funded and challenge account. Looks like classic "Me too" moment for prop firms. When you cheat its your money you can do what ever but when trader takes advantage you can't do because you are male
  • #16,839
  • Jun 20, 2023 4:30pm Jun 20, 2023 4:30pm
Quoting Capablanca
{quote} And apparently one of them was a funded account and the other was a challenge... Not sure how true is what he said but this is an easy way to fabricate a ban of some winning trader. So, we need to milk MFFx the most we can, knowing that at any moment we may have problems. I always have the principle that behind a public claim there are many more silent claims...
Matt CEO got brutally roasted (and rightfully so) by members scrutinizing him on why he was blurring the second supposed hedged trade of the other supposed firm.

He ran away like a coward in the end and left the group.

Should tell you a lot of MFFX as a firm.

For me, I firmly believe they are scammers.
  • #16,840
  • Jun 20, 2023 4:44pm Jun 20, 2023 4:44pm
Quoting Capablanca
{quote} And apparently one of them was a funded account and the other was a challenge... Not sure how true is what he said but this is an easy way to fabricate a ban of some winning trader. So, we need to milk MFFx the most we can, knowing that at any moment we may have problems. I always have the principle that behind a public claim there are many more silent claims...
Actually I don't understand exactly the strategy of the guy.
3 lots in challenge and 3 lots reverse in funded. I probably missed something but I don't see any advantage, specially if the winning side is the challenge !
45 traders viewing now