Prop Firm Hub | Page 1643 | 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

  • #32,841
  • Mar 9, 2024 11:09am Mar 9, 2024 11:09am
Quoting solarpower
What is the exactl line he is wrong, can you share that, just for interest? He said CFTC cannot fine unless they have (proven) jurisdiction. He is right. In MFF case, jurisdiction argument seems to unclear, not finished yet. Don't you agree?
-That is not what he said. And you can read my response to what he actually said already.

EDIT: Sorry. I just cannot be bothered today.
  • #32,842
  • Mar 9, 2024 11:15am Mar 9, 2024 11:15am
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-That is not what he said. And you can read my response to what he actually said already. EDIT: Sorry. I just cannot be bothered today.
sending e-brohug.
  • #32,843
  • Mar 9, 2024 11:16am Mar 9, 2024 11:16am
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-That is not what he said. And you can read my response to what he actually said already. EDIT: Sorry. I just cannot be bothered today.
Yesterday I was reading your posts whch I liked. But today you seem to be slipped in thought. Yes, probably, you are tired. Peace!
  • #32,844
  • Mar 9, 2024 11:33am Mar 9, 2024 11:33am
Quoting solarpower
Yesterday I was reading your posts whch I liked. But today you seem to be slipped in thought. Yes, probably, you are tired. Peace!
-I am not slipped in thought. The fact is, the CFTC may assert jurisdiction over foreign entities that offer or sell derivatives to US persons or engage in manipulative or fraudulent conduct that impacts US markets or US participants. This is why companies that are regulated in foreign jurisdictions do not offer services to US citizens, because it would require them to register with the CFTC and remain compliant with them. This is also why you will sometimes see foreign exchanges getting charged by the SEC and CFTC, even though they operate in foreign jurisdictions (because they offered services to US clients without proper registration; pay-to-play 'permission').
  • #32,845
  • Mar 9, 2024 11:48am Mar 9, 2024 11:48am
In terms of offshore, unregulated brokerages that are offering services to US citizens, they do so by setting up shop in friendly jurisdictions where pre-existing regulation and/or where reciprocity agreements with the US may be lacking, making it more difficult to conduct proper investigative measures on those types of businesses.

Such brokers also operate anonymously, using crypto-only transfers that make identification nearly impossible. This is also why many brokers lost their Meta license, because they were not willing and/or able to satisfy the banking and registration requirements, and also why groups like the CFTC and SEC target payment processors and publish 'red lists'; because they cannot reach or cannot prove.
  • #32,846
  • Mar 9, 2024 11:51am Mar 9, 2024 11:51am
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-I am not slipped in thought. The fact is, the CFTC may assert jurisdiction over foreign entities that offer or sell derivatives to US persons or engage in manipulative or fraudulent conduct that impacts US markets or US participants. This is why companies that are regulated in foreign jurisdictions do not offer services to US citizens, because it would require them to register with the CFTC and remain compliant with them. This is also why you will sometimes see foreign exchanges getting charged by the SEC and CFTC, even though they operate...
Yes, I agree CFTC can target anyone offering CFDs/FX to US clients, even if they are on some small island.
The problem was, were CFTC able to directly fine without judgement of court, without first proving if simulated transactions were under their jurisdiction?
If simulated transactions do not fall under CFTC's umbrella, then CFTC has no right to fine.
  • #32,847
  • Mar 9, 2024 11:56am Mar 9, 2024 11:56am
Quoting solarpower
The problem was, were CFTC able to directly fine without judgement of court, without first proving if simulated transactions were under their jurisdiction? If simulated transactions do not fall under CFTC's umbrella, then CFTC has no right to fine.
-But this is a different discussion. I have stated many times that this should probably not even fall within the jurisdictional scope of the CFTC, and that my hope was that we could see some legal clarity on the matter. But I am doubtful that we will see anything like that.

Because the truth of the matter is, MFF could have offered paper trading instead of Metatrader. Then what do you have? A data collection company.
  • #32,848
  • Edited 1:40pm Mar 9, 2024 12:16pm | Edited 1:40pm
Quoting solarpower
{quote} Yes, I agree CFTC can target anyone offering CFDs/FX to US clients, even if they are on some small island. The problem was, were CFTC able to directly fine without judgement of court, without first proving if simulated transactions were under their jurisdiction? If simulated transactions do not fall under CFTC's umbrella, then CFTC has no right to fine.
So instead... the CFTC lied to the court just like the SEC recently lied to the court to get the extraordinary measure of total personal + corporate asset freeze and complete shutdown of a business without first proving if simulated transactions were under their jurisdiction?
  • #32,849
  • Mar 9, 2024 12:21pm Mar 9, 2024 12:21pm
Quoting CableJ
{quote} So instead... the CFTC lied to the court to get an extraordinary measure of total asset seizure and complete shutdown of business without first proving if simulated transactions were under their jurisdiction?
I have been reading the court case lately. Yes, the triggering point was that damn 'look 30 million moving' lie to destroy the business.

But it seems common practice which needs punishment.

"A federal judge says SEC lawyers lied to freeze a crypto company’s assets".
https://blockworks.co/news/judge-sec...training-order
  • #32,850
  • Mar 9, 2024 12:38pm Mar 9, 2024 12:38pm
It seems to be a common theme these days, seeing US regulators operating outside of the ethical boundaries of their agency. This kind of abuse-of-power and overstepping needs to be stopped. The oversight and accountability is severely lacking in this country, especially in terms of these regulatory agencies that seem to be driven by some questionable agenda.

Perhaps it may be easy for non-US members here to claim that we all hate regulation, but that is simply not true. As mentioned many times before, we do not want nor need the type of over-reaching regulation that operates unchecked and pushes jobs, innovation and other opportunities overseas while the rest of the world treats us like pariah.
  • #32,851
  • Mar 9, 2024 1:09pm Mar 9, 2024 1:09pm
Its only a matter of time until the Easton Tech companies rugpull. Brace yourselves.
  • #32,852
  • Mar 9, 2024 1:26pm Mar 9, 2024 1:26pm
Quoting Takisd
Its only a matter of time until the Easton Tech companies rugpull. Brace yourselves.
Yep and that will be bad for the industry as more regulators will hurry regulations or ban prop firms, Angelo will really revolutionize the industry but for the negative
  • #32,853
  • Mar 9, 2024 1:36pm Mar 9, 2024 1:36pm
Quoting Takisd
Its only a matter of time until the Easton Tech companies rugpull. Brace yourselves.
“Easton Tech” ?
A snails pace wins the race :-)
  • #32,854
  • Mar 9, 2024 1:46pm Mar 9, 2024 1:46pm
Quoting Takisd
Its only a matter of time until the Easton Tech companies rugpull. Brace yourselves.
TFT is one of the biggest funding co so the fallout from their eventual collapse due to bad management + CFTC/Meta pressure on their partners will very likely give the CFTC additional bullets.
  • #32,855
  • Mar 9, 2024 1:48pm Mar 9, 2024 1:48pm
Quoting solarpower
I saw nothing wrong in Karl's quoted post.

There was nothing wrong. It was factual. Nsak3y and CableJ are just completely wrong (as ever).


Quoting solarpower
His problem is he screams.

There you have a point. Sorry.

I get very frustrated at the level of ignorance and people insisting they’re right when they actually have no idea what they’re talking about.

But it helps nobody.

I'll try not to do that. Apologies.


Quoting solarpower
He said CFTC cannot fine unless they have (proven) jurisdiction. He is right.

You won't convince them. They just want to "Be Right" and (like almost everyone who mostly wants that), they're just not (of course).
  • #32,856
  • Mar 9, 2024 2:16pm Mar 9, 2024 2:16pm
Quoting Takisd
Its only a matter of time until the Easton Tech companies rugpull. Brace yourselves.
So only the companies associated with Angeli or any others?
  • #32,857
  • Mar 9, 2024 2:29pm Mar 9, 2024 2:29pm
Quoting Tobiazzek
{quote} So only the companies associated with Angeli or any others?
SFT TFT LUS ROCKET STB and few others.
  • #32,858
  • Mar 9, 2024 3:07pm Mar 9, 2024 3:07pm
Quoting Takisd
{quote} SFT TFT LUS ROCKET STB and few others.
This will be interesting when they fall, TFT has A LOT o clients.
  • #32,859
  • Mar 9, 2024 3:22pm Mar 9, 2024 3:22pm
check their trust pilot.

also
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: screenshot.png Size: 116 KB
  • #32,860
  • Mar 9, 2024 3:23pm Mar 9, 2024 3:23pm
Quoting Takisd
{quote} SFT TFT LUS ROCKET STB and few others.
So STF part of the shitty kingdom ?
I will stay away if so
I'm frustrated with them
64 traders viewing now