Prop Firm Hub | Page 1409 | 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

  • #28,161
  • Jan 12, 2024 7:59am Jan 12, 2024 7:59am
Quoting Zuke
{quote} Genuine question...are you willing/able to answer?
We traders are the victims.
  • #28,162
  • Jan 12, 2024 7:59am Jan 12, 2024 7:59am
Quoting Zuke
{quote} Just so Im clear, is your assertion that MFF are the victim here?
Not just the company.....their employees and customers as well. The CFTC is not the hero here, they are the villian.
  • #28,163
  • Jan 12, 2024 8:02am Jan 12, 2024 8:02am
Quoting pipmaster77
{quote} Not just the company.....their employees and customers as well. The CFTC is not the hero here, they are the villian.
Better question......who did this action by the CFTC benefit.......the losing traders that will now lose elsewhere? No, that wouldn't be the answer.......hmmmm, I wonder who this could benefit?
  • #28,164
  • Jan 12, 2024 8:07am Jan 12, 2024 8:07am
Quoting Zuke
Genuine question...are you willing/able to answer?
-If you really want to know what I think (doubtful), then you can look back at the many posts that I have made regarding this topic. If you're wondering why I seem annoyed (doubtful), it is because I am tired of having to explain myself, repeatedly, to people that not only refuse to listen, but refuse to answer legitimate questions in return and only seem to want to provoke members here by making condescending, presumptuous remarks that are often entirely wrong or based on fabrications.
  • #28,165
  • Jan 12, 2024 8:10am Jan 12, 2024 8:10am
Quoting pipmaster77
{quote} Better question......who did this action by the CFTC benefit.......the losing traders that will now lose elsewhere? No, that wouldn't be the answer.......hmmmm, I wonder who this could benefit?
It sends a message to other props firms that you shouldn't totally misrepresent their business, create conditions with the intention to increases failure rate, raises the barriers to entry, likely makes partners (banks / payment providers etc) scrutinise the props more before working with them (reducing the likelihood of criminality), gave traders a look into how props can work and what to look for and what questions to ask. It 'stress-tests' the industry to see if it can survive and will help define the regulatory / non-regulatory boundaries.
  • #28,166
  • Jan 12, 2024 8:19am Jan 12, 2024 8:19am
The most interesting thing is the random futures circlejerking that has occurred since the cftc action. For years ff was really empty of futures discussion but ta da it is almost as if there is some weird agenda driving people to believe that futures are easier to trade when in fact, it’s the opposite.
  • #28,167
  • Jan 12, 2024 8:25am Jan 12, 2024 8:25am
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-If you really want to know what I think (doubtful), then you can look back at the many posts that I have made regarding this topic. If you're wondering why I seem annoyed (doubtful), it is because I am tired of having to explain myself, repeatedly, to people that not only refuse to listen, but refuse to answer legitimate questions in return and only seem to want to provoke members here by making condescending, presumptuous remarks that are often entirely wrong or based on fabrications.
No problem mate...Ill go back and read what you previously wrote. Im trying to see if we can steer this discussion to one of less rancour, political views and finger-pointing hence my question to you.
  • #28,168
  • Jan 12, 2024 8:29am Jan 12, 2024 8:29am
Quoting pipmaster77
{quote} Better question......who did this action by the CFTC benefit.......the losing traders that will now lose elsewhere? No, that wouldn't be the answer.......hmmmm, I wonder who this could benefit?
I think both are valid but one doesnt negate the other. There is the question of what did MFF do and was their conduct fraudulent/unethical/immoral etc etc. There is also always a valid question of are CFTC overeaching, what is the true purpose of this investigation etc etc.

I personally dont think theres an issue with pursuing both discussions but acknowledge that one will be more important to some people than the other
  • #28,169
  • Jan 12, 2024 8:42am Jan 12, 2024 8:42am
Quoting Cryptosurf
{quote} Whats their indicie trading conditions look like? Same as FTMO?
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: 5%ers indices.PNG Size: 2 KB
  • #28,170
  • Edited 10:28am Jan 12, 2024 8:57am | Edited 10:28am
Quoting Zuke
No problem mate...Ill go back and read what you previously wrote. Im trying to see if we can steer this discussion to one of less rancour, political views and finger-pointing hence my question to you.
-Alright. You asked me if I believe that MFF are the victim. I do not see things in that way. I believe that this space needs regulation, but not the overreaching, crippling kind. We need the kind that deters actual criminals and scammers from operating, not the kind that punishes the good firms that are providing positive opportunities for traders, or is so costly and burdensome to comply with that it creates an undue burden on these businesses etc., making it impossible or too risky to remain operational.

We need legal and regulatory clarity for this space, and the case against MFF could serve a meaningful purpose for that. But will it though? Unlikely.

The CFTC could have handled this in a much better way, by trying to work with MFF, but in usual fashion, they opted to seek and destroy without mercy. They have behaved like thugs with no accountability, lying and creating a very intentional narrative with obvious intentions.

Regulation in this country is supposed to serve the people, not act as an enforcement agency that operates a pay-to-play game that drives innovation, opportunities and jobs overseas etc..

Not a single trader, that I know of, that actually traded with MFF, actually believed that their trades were taking place in a live environment. Everyone here knew that the trades were simulated. We had countless conversations here about simulated slippage thresholds. It did not stop us from trading.

Not a single trader, that I know of, that actually traded with MFF, even remotely cares about the misleading marketing 'we win when you win' nonsense, because we already knew what was really going on and how the business model worked, and MFF always paid their debts. We also know that these firms did win when traders won, which is why some of them were clearly so desperate to do interviews and spread the word when traders broke records etc..

Does that mean that the case against MFF is not warranted? No. They are not 100% innocent. But some of the claims that have been made regarding their activity is also not 100% accurate, and there is an obvious need for clarity regarding what, if any, kind of regulation is even applicable, given the nature of how the business operates and is structured etc..

It seems to me that the few members here that keep pushing this seemingly, pro-regulation agenda, have probably never even traded with MFF, and have no real skin in the game at all, and are just here to troll this thread, for whatever strange reason. And I say that based on what I have read here and how such members often seem to be very selective to what they reply to or even read themselves. Not to mention the very questionable persistence that they often exhibit.

Any further discussion of this topic would be like beating a dead horse and would not provide any value at this point; people are just repeating themselves.

It is not my intention to create or fuel a toxic environment. I am sorry if I offended anyone.
  • #28,171
  • Jan 12, 2024 9:12am Jan 12, 2024 9:12am
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-Alright. You asked me if I believe that MFF are the victim. I do not see things in that way. I believe that this space needs regulation, but not the overreaching, crippling kind. We need the kind that deters actual criminals and scammers from operating, not the kind that punishes the good firms that are providing positive opportunities for traders, or is so costly and burdensome to comply with that it creates an undue burden on these businesses etc., making it impossible or too risky to remain operational. We need legal and regulatory clarity...
Thanks for the response...its really appreciated.

Ironically, Im actually not particularly pro-regulation in this area. While academically it would make sense to do so, Im struggling to really see how effective it could ever really be.

As youve said, no point in me going over old arguments but its always interesting for me to hear differing views, especially those to which I am diametrically opposed.
  • #28,172
  • Jan 12, 2024 9:13am Jan 12, 2024 9:13am
Just read that FTMO stopped accepting US clients. Do we know what percentage of their clients are from the US and whether this will adversely affect their business model. We know EU regulators are coming as well but until then, we just keep going.
  • #28,173
  • Jan 12, 2024 10:09am Jan 12, 2024 10:09am
Quoting Inception12
Just read that FTMO stopped accepting US clients. Do we know what percentage of their clients are from the US and whether this will adversely affect their business model. We know EU regulators are coming as well but until then, we just keep going.
I think more than 11%, cause Tristian, the CEO of FE claims that 11% of their clients are from the US, and FTMO is the biggest firm out there so the number may be higher a little bit, but it is still a huge loss tho.
  • #28,174
  • Jan 12, 2024 10:13am Jan 12, 2024 10:13am
Quoting longcanlun12
{quote} I think more than 11%, cause Tristian, the CEO of FE claims that 11% of their clients are from the US, and FTMO is the biggest firm out there so the number may be higher a little bit, but it is still a huge loss tho.
Thanks for that. Do we think Canada residents will be next or they'll ban the nationals like they did with the US.
  • #28,175
  • Jan 12, 2024 10:27am Jan 12, 2024 10:27am
It is interesting that there is so much emphasis on the misrepresentation aspect of this case, especially when it is not fully clear what MFF's intentions truly were. Most of us know, already, that many of these firms fudged the truth and were tight-lipped about what they were really doing because of competition... not because they were trying to trick traders.

MFF made it clear, many times, that they did not want cheaters gaming the system. Any artificial manipulations that they applied were an effort to deter cheating and to offer more-realistic conditions; not to cheat traders, but to level the playing field by making things fair and reasonable. Any firm that tries to employ manipulations in an attempt to cheat traders will likely get exposed quickly and lose market share. We all know these things already.

The simulated conditions that MFF offered were tradable and reasonable. I'm not sure what kind of trader would have preferred trading in a truly live environment. What is live, anyway? What you get from a broker? Because unless you're being A-booked, you are probably getting something similar to what MFF were providing.

I struggle to understand, how knowing the truth, about how the business really worked, would have been beneficial to the trader or made any meaningful difference. Traders that are getting B-booked don't care as long as they can make a profit. They even accept that the broker is trading against them and that their trades are not even reaching a real exchange. The fact that you are trading the house's money with zero risk with these firms (should you reach funded stage), only solidifies this argument.

Does it make it right to lie to consumers? No. But is it as big as some people are making it out to be? I am not trying to justify what MFF did, but I just do not understand the overzealous sentiment that some seem to have about the misrepresentation.

I will stop talking about this. But it does seem clear that the CFTC are not interested about the lies or even getting MFF properly licensed. They have one goal in mind, and that is to destroy the remote fx prop space. It shouldn't be this way, and that is a problem.
  • #28,176
  • Jan 12, 2024 10:33am Jan 12, 2024 10:33am
Quoting Inception12
Just read that FTMO stopped accepting US clients. Do we know what percentage of their clients are from the US and whether this will adversely affect their business model. We know EU regulators are coming as well but until then, we just keep going.
I guess EU regulators are less violent than USA regulators. Instead of freezing all the assets suddenly, they may first ask big props over for a talk.
  • #28,177
  • Jan 12, 2024 10:45am Jan 12, 2024 10:45am
Quoting Nsak3y
MFF made it clear, many times, that they did not want cheaters gaming the system. Any artificial manipulations that they applied were an effort to deter cheating and to offer more-realistic conditions; not to cheat traders, but to level the playing field by making things fair and reasonable. Any firm that tries to employ manipulations in an attempt to cheat traders will likely get exposed quickly and lose market share. We all know these things already. The simulated conditions that MFF offered were tradable and reasonable.
MFF was most honest prop in that area.

They battled cheaters in a fair way, hitting cheaters, EAs and HFTs with worse spreads (worse spreads = market spreads), creating different profiles with different execution slippage (closer to market conditions) and kept the remaining (normal) traders with better than market conditions.

This, to me, is was fair battle MFF vs cheaters/EAs/HTFs. Other props don't have the capacity, knowledge and competence that MFF developed and prefer to deny payouts and/or fabricate fake reasons for not paying.
  • #28,178
  • Jan 12, 2024 10:52am Jan 12, 2024 10:52am
Quoting Capablanca
{quote} MFF was most honest prop in that area.
-Yes, and I would argue the most transparent.

If the CFTC can make an example out of MFF, then the rest should fall very easily.
  • #28,179
  • Jan 12, 2024 11:01am Jan 12, 2024 11:01am
Quoting Capablanca
{quote} MFF was most honest prop in that area. They battled cheaters in a fair way, hitting cheaters, EAs and HFTs with worse spreads (worse spreads = market spreads), creating different profiles with different execution slippage (closer to market conditions) and kept the remaining (normal) traders with better than market conditions. This, to me, is was fair battle MFF vs cheaters/EAs/HTFs. Other props don't have the capacity, knowledge and competence that MFF developed and prefer to deny payouts and/or fabricate fake reasons for not paying.
The irony is, with the size some were trading EVEN WITH THE SLIPPAGE MANIPULATION, those traders were still getting better conditions than live on their own.
Most do not seem to realize this, as they no clue how markets actually work. They see "slip them to hell" and that he had a nice home and cars and automatically he is a cheater, liar and crook.
  • #28,180
  • Jan 12, 2024 11:06am Jan 12, 2024 11:06am
Quoting Zuke
{quote} Ive yet to see a casino or bookmaker advertise with the slogan "when you win, we win". As Ive repeatedly said, MFF (and all the other firms actually) should have gone down the road IG and other spread betting firms went and made it clear that you are trading against them and that your trades are not placed in the real market. Anyway, onwards and upwards...its Friday, lets see what the market brings us today.
Again, if a trader thinks that props are A booking then they are a moron and shouldn't be trading in the first place. Anyways, downwards and farther down the victim's path.
Pride always comes before destruction.... -Proverbs 16:18
38 traders viewing now