Prop Firm Hub | Page 1402 | 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

  • #28,021
  • Jan 10, 2024 7:33am Jan 10, 2024 7:33am
Quoting pipmaster77
{quote} This is a great question. If it is CFTC, I would think NO US clients may exist. However, there are 2 offshore brokers which I still use that stopped onboarding US clinets like 3 years ago. I believe you use both as well.
Also makes no sense and this is probably THE BEST POINT....if they do operate the way everyone assumes, fees cover payouts.........the existing customers are ONLY a liability now, there is no revenue from the US as even EXISTING customers can no longer purchase NEW challenges....no way they make that decision unprovoked.
  • #28,022
  • Jan 10, 2024 7:36am Jan 10, 2024 7:36am
It doesn't matter that a company is based outside of the USA. Regulators will still do what they can to cause them harm.

Perfect example is 1broker.com

They were based in Germany and US regulators seized their domain and shut them down.

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: 1broker.png Size: 37 KB
Trade with confidence, trade without fear.
  • #28,023
  • Jan 10, 2024 7:37am Jan 10, 2024 7:37am
Quoting Capablanca
This is funny coming from the guys in the CFTC red list {image}
The red list exists because the CFTC cannot touch the firms/brokers on that list ( for whatever reason).
One of my criteria for choosing a broker, is they MUST be on that list. Fuck the CFTC.
  • #28,024
  • Jan 10, 2024 7:38am Jan 10, 2024 7:38am
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-Wrong again. I do not believe that anyone here thinks that some regulatory oversight is a bad thing. We all want some oversight and accountability with firms. But it needs to be the right kind, not the overreaching, crippling kind.
yeah, the less-informed and misguided do not understand that side of the argument, yet WE are the less-informed and misguided....the irony
  • #28,025
  • Jan 10, 2024 7:53am Jan 10, 2024 7:53am
Quoting lynnc
Everyone on discord is being told by their moderators, if they are a US citizen whether or not they reside somewhere else in the world they will not be allowed to purchase a new challenge. Anyone with dual citizenship can do their kyc with the citizenship of another country. This is what the moderators have been telling people: It is not about the Proof of Address, it is about the identity. If you have a US ID card for the KYC Process then you cannot use our services
I have not been in their Discord and I was commenting based solely in the print screens that I saw in Twitter, which never mention a complete ban for americans, no matter where they live.

What you are saying is new information for me. Thanks for the info. Sounds that these days being american is a sin for FTMO.
  • #28,026
  • Jan 10, 2024 7:54am Jan 10, 2024 7:54am
Quoting Capablanca
{quote} I have not been in their Discord and I was commenting based solely in the print screens that I saw in Twitter, which never mention a complete ban for americans, no matter where they live. What you are saying is new information for me. Thanks for the info. Sounds that these days being american is a sin for FTMO.
Being an American is a sin......period.
  • #28,027
  • Jan 10, 2024 7:54am Jan 10, 2024 7:54am
Quoting pipmaster77
{quote} yeah, the less-informed and misguided do not understand that side of the argument, yet WE are the less-informed and misguided....the irony
in this moment I want regulation but not this way. It’s not human to just take away things rather than work out ways to make things work.

but what do I know, I am just a guy who knows stp causes condition decay and that it’s ok to buy things with your money. I must be ill informed
  • #28,028
  • Jan 10, 2024 8:06am Jan 10, 2024 8:06am
Quoting Capablanca
That's not what the announcement says. They don't allow US clients (national) both in US and US overseas territories. If they would forbid an US citizen in Italy from purchasing then they would say all american citizens worldwide.
-That's what US National means... US Citizen; regardless of residence.
  • #28,029
  • Jan 10, 2024 8:08am Jan 10, 2024 8:08am
Quoting KarlKraus
Lol - you wouldn’t think that, if you’d received the same private messages (unsolicited, rude ones) as me, here, over the last couple of months!
-Have you considered that you might bring that on yourself by always making condescending claims about people?

Quoting KarlKraus
It’s crystal clear that some people here do think that there’s absolutely no legitimate role for any regulatory oversight of prop firms at all
-Is it, though? Who thinks that way?
  • #28,030
  • Jan 10, 2024 8:13am Jan 10, 2024 8:13am
Quoting pipmaster77
{quote} Great point. Why is a suuccessful business owner buying or having assets frowned upon?
It's not. It's often admirable to see success.

It's a little different when that person is lying to all his customers.
  • #28,031
  • Jan 10, 2024 8:14am Jan 10, 2024 8:14am
Quoting Thomas.
FTMO doesnt trade CFDs, they simulate CFD trading, its a gray area. Its not real in the first place. But i personally think they should be punished for their greed, offering Services where its not allowed, or for Kind of claiming to offer CFD trading when its just demo Quotes
-FTMO, like most firms, have always made it clear that traders would be placed on demo, and that any trade copying/forwarding would be at their discretion. They are not greedy for offering services to regions where such services are in high demand, that is just commonsense thinking and practical business sense.

The only reason they, and other firms, may be under fire is simply because of the overreaching regulation that is being driven by made-up, unreasonable rules (and other questionable forces). The fact that such foreign business entities should even be subjected to the rules and regulations of a completely-foreign country while legally operating outside of the jurisdiction of said foreign country is a matter of much-needed debate, in my opinion.
  • #28,032
  • Jan 10, 2024 8:35am Jan 10, 2024 8:35am
Quoting Nsak3y
Have you considered that you might bring that on yourself by always making condescending claims about people?

Yes, I know that. It’s not my intention but I can come across that way, sorry.


Quoting Nsak3y
Who thinks that way?

When I send someone a p.m. I don’t expect to see it discussed on the board, and will extend that same right to those who chose to contact me that way - that’s not unreasonable, surely?


Quoting Nsak3y
They are not greedy for offering services to regions where such services are in high demand, that is just commonsense thinking and practical business sense.

I agree.


Quoting Nsak3y
The only reason they, and other firms, may be under fire is simply because of the overreaching regulation

The only reason? You really don’t think the fact that MFF made obviously fraudulent statements on their website contributed at all to what happened? Ok …
  • #28,033
  • Jan 10, 2024 8:47am Jan 10, 2024 8:47am
Quoting KarlKraus
{quote} This is clearly right. It would have been completely ridiculous (and surely unlawful, too) for the regulators not to act on the whistleblower’s information. {quote} Right again - though some less well-informed and more misguided members here really don’t like hearing this (especially from people with real industry experience). Thanks for posting here.
Where is your partner 'Quickly'? Why he didn't show up to support you recently?
  • #28,034
  • Jan 10, 2024 10:02am Jan 10, 2024 10:02am
Quoting Capablanca
This is funny coming from the guys in the CFTC red list {image}
Any ideas who these 'varied licenses' refer to? I see they recently updated their privacy policy to include data sharing with entities in the UAE and Dominica.
  • #28,035
  • Edited 10:17am Jan 10, 2024 10:03am | Edited 10:17am
Quoting KarlKraus
When I send someone a p.m. I don’t expect to see it discussed on the board, and will extend that same right to those who chose to contact me that way - that’s not unreasonable, surely?
-I do not expect that, either. It was more of a rhetorical question. Obviously, I would not expect you to disclose private conversations. I was making a reference to what has been spoken about publicly; about things that we can actually base our opinions on.

This is what I am talking about... you often make assumptions about what people think and say, and it rubs people the wrong way, because it's often done in a condescending manner. Maybe it's a cultural thing. As an example:

Quoting KarlKraus
The only reason? You really don’t think the fact that MFF made obviously fraudulent statements on their website contributed at all to what happened? Ok …
-This kind of nonsense is childish. Of course I was making a general statement about regulation. The whole reason that these firms are under fire is because of regulation. That does not mean that the regulation does not serve any valid purpose or that it is unwarranted.

Do I think that MFF made 'fraudulent' statements? Not really. Did they make false statements? Yes. But most traders already knew the truth. I also think that the false statements that were made are something that should not fall within the scope of the CFTC. We have different groups for that. Nowhere did I state the these false statements had nothing to do with regulatory interference.
  • #28,036
  • Jan 10, 2024 10:12am Jan 10, 2024 10:12am
It'd be a bit strange if the CFTC wasn't able to take action against companies making 'false statements' (AKA total, deliberate lies to attract customers) about the financial markets they regulate.
  • #28,037
  • Jan 10, 2024 10:27am Jan 10, 2024 10:27am
Quoting PropDude1234
It'd be a bit strange if the CFTC wasn't able to take action against companies making 'false statements'
-Maybe, but that's not what I said. I said that it should not fall within their scope. We have the FTC and other groups that regulate false advertisement and consumer protections etc.. Which is why any case involving activity that does not fall within the scope of a particular regulatory/enforcement group, would and should be handled by the appropriate parties for any applicable activity. I am no expert, but this seems like the logical conclusion.

At this point, an argument could even be made about whether or not what these prop firms are doing should fall within the scope of the CFTC at all, since no real trading is even occurring.

The claims that are often being made here, are that MFF made 'fraudulent' statements, but that is not accurate in my opinion, since they were not defrauding anyone. They made false statements, sure, but not fraudulent. Maybe I am wrong, but how did they defraud people? It seems that the results would have been the same, whether a trader believed that MFF was counter-party to their trades or not.
  • #28,038
  • Jan 10, 2024 10:30am Jan 10, 2024 10:30am
Quoting PropDude1234
It'd be a bit strange if the CFTC wasn't able to take action against companies making 'false statements' (AKA total, deliberate lies to attract customers) about the financial markets they regulate.
oh boy......here we go. How abot this....is it OK for them to pick and choose who they "regulate" based on who pays them off?
Only the naive do not see what is truly going on.
The brokers they regulate are among the shadiest brokers in the world, but allowed to continue their shady practices......Yet, the good brokers of the world are off limits to me as a US citizen....why? The CFTC does exactly ZERO to benefit the trader. It is simply an over reaching arm of the over eaching government of the overreaching USA.
  • #28,039
  • Jan 10, 2024 10:34am Jan 10, 2024 10:34am
Quoting pipmaster77
{quote} oh boy......here we go. How abot this....is it OK for them to pick and choose who they "regulate" based on who pays them off? Only the naive do not see what is truly going on. The brokers they regulate are among the shadiest brokers in the world, but allowed to continue their shady practices......the CFTC does exactly ZERO to benefit the trader. It is simply an over reaching arm of the over eaching government of the overreaching USA.
If there are integrity matters and other concerns then they obviously should be addressed.

However, that's separate and different from suggesting the regulator that regulates the financial markets shouldn't have the scope to take action against companies making false statement (perhaps even fraudulent, if proven) around said financial markets.
  • #28,040
  • Jan 10, 2024 10:42am Jan 10, 2024 10:42am
Quoting PropDude1234
It'd be a bit strange if the CFTC wasn't able to take action against companies making 'false statements' (AKA total, deliberate lies to attract customers) about the financial markets they regulate.
Are you connected with 'KarlKraus'? Are you 'Quickly'? You joined ForexFactory yesterday, you only posted in this thread, you and KarlKraus are in the same time zone and share the same views.
53 traders viewing now