Going offshore to escape the CFTC

ADAMANTFINANCE.COM MT4 ACCOUNT

I decided to get an Adamant account to check their general
performance and specs. It would be their MarketPrime account type
with spreads from 0.1 PIPs…

However, their website is woefully unmanaged, and literally isn’t
working to open the account; it just times out. I’m accustomed to
that, since the trading servers are often completely different and
work fine, despite a website issue. Also, an attempt to chat with
support times out as well… Not an auspicious start, but I will keep trying…

So, this is in the interest of “diversification” of accounts, and I do
have a Master/multi-Slave relationship in the software, so that I can
exercise these various accounts simultaneously through the
NJ4X.com multi-brokerage MT4/MT5 pooling capabilities… Anyway…
I will report the performance/technical stats for the 28 major Forex
pairs, if I can ever get an account actually established !! embarrassing

hyperscalper

Hello, i´m not an american trader but i feel curiosity. who writes the list of forex brokers off shore authorized to acept traders from USA? NFA, CFTC?
Has anybody tried to demand these authorities at a court with a good lawyers team?
What´re the real reasons behind this nonsense regulatory body?
Is “get up, stand up fight for your rights” an option?

[quote=“jag1969, post:5145, topic:35612”]
get up, stand up fight for your rights" an option
[/quote]NO, get up, stand up fight for your rights is not an option, because it’s the law.of the land.

ADAMANT FOLLOW-UP

Tried the account creation again, and “Account opening failed”
continues to appear.

On what basis are we including AdamantFinance.com in our list?

Yes, this is a weekend, so I should wait until markets open, but
this would appear to be a “dead” organization !?! … Login to chat,
fails with a timeout… No emails appear as the result of these
multiple website failures…

Do we have AdamantFinance trader clients anywhere on this thread?

hyperscalper


I’m having the same issues with the Adamant website. Here’s a screen-shot –
(click the image to enlarge it)


On the basis that Adamant Finance has (previously) appeared to be —

(1) a legitimate broker that (2) welcomes U.S. clients.

If their legitimacy is in question, we will have to remove them from our List.

Until we find out what’s going on with this broker, I will add a WARNING to the Adamant Finance listing on post #1.

1 Like

I think they have proved to be stable and have stood with their commitments so far. I would vote them as a trusted broker.

BTW, any bitcoin based brokers you found outside of what we already have ?, It will be great to be able to add some crypto brokers to our list.

1 Like

I wish it was that easy :slight_smile:

USING CRYPTO THROUGH SHAPESHIFT TO FUND ACCOUNT
*** IMPORTANT SHAPESHIFT / COINBASE INFO *****

OK, I understand this is a bit off-topic but, since the CFTC’s attack methods
on U.S. persons’ offshore brokers, include restricting FUNDS TRANSFER
methods, I have advocated using Crypto for transfer of funds to and
from these brokers. These brokers include Evolve.Markets, FinProTrading,
TurnkeyForex and others which will accept Crypto transfers, usually
in BitCoin (BTC).units.

ShapeShift.io is a service which will transform one Crypto currency
to another one, and then forward the result to a destination. In my
case, I had Ethereum coin in Coinbase, which I wanted to “pipe” through
ShapeShift.io into BTC and deposit those BTC at Evolve.Markets in
the account.

I MADE THE MISTAKE OF CHOOSING “PRECISE” AS THE
TRANSFER METHOD AT SHAPESHIFT. Here’s the problem.
When choosing “precise” as the method, Coinbase as the sender
was NOT able to send the data to ShapeShift in the FIVE MINUTES
of time allowed. THUS SHAPESHIFT “times out”. You should have
provided a “REFUND ADDRESS” in the transaction and so ShapeShift
refunds the transaction which hits it, BACK to the sender which is
Coinbase, in my example. (Minus the small fee.) Well, at least I got
my money back on the failed transaction (minus the fee).

INSTEAD, HERE’S HOW YOU USE SHAPESHIFT.IO . DO NOT
CHOOSE THE “PRECISE” METHOD; CHOOSE “QUICK” INSTEAD.

This is described at ShapeShift.io here:
https://info.shapeshift.io/blog/2016/03/11/pro-tip-difference-between-quick-and-precise-transaction

BOTTOM LINE: Always use “Quick” to initiate the ShapeShift.io transaction,
and always provide a valid “refund address” back to your source wallet in case
of problems. Be very careful with the “destination” which is where you want
to sent the resulting coin, and choosing the input and output crypto types,
of course…

I was able to move $100 of Ethereum from Coinbase, through ShapeShift.io
into BTC and on to the MT5 Evolve.Markets account in less than 3 minutes !!!
So, when you want quick funds transfers (with a little practice) using ShapeShift.io
(or there may be other such services) you have the ability to hold your favorite
Crypto (I prefer LiteCoin or Ethereum, rather than BitCoin) but to fund your
Broker in the Crypto form that is accepted… very quickly !!

Practice makes perfect on these things, so do small transactions to make
sure you know how to do it safely. Here’s the ShapeShift.io confirmation screen:

hyperscalper

2 Likes

just signed up to FinPro account – anyone notice TurnKey Fx Demo server registers as a “Real” account for EA’s and third party services?

Here’s an email I sent to Adamant Finance ([email protected]) this morning –
(click the image to enlarge it)


There has been no reply to my email to Adamant Finance.

Their website remains essentially unusable. Their support staff remain unreachable.

Later tonight or tomorrow, I will remove Adamant Finance (SVG) from our List.

Any thoughts on the Dodd-Frank rollback, as far as US forex traders are concerned?

The rollback you’re referring to was extremely modest, easing the regulatory burden on a certain group of small banks, and nothing more. It falls far short of Trump’s campaign promise to repeal Dodd-Frank.

The Los Angeles Times reports –

Trump signs bipartisan bill rolling back some Dodd-Frank bank regulations

  • President Trump on Thursday signed bipartisan legislation rolling back some of the Dodd-Frank financial rules put in place after the 2008 financial crisis, touting another victory for his deregulatory agenda.

  • But the bill fell well short of his campaign call to dismantle the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, leaving key pillars unchanged, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

  • Instead, with the key support of some Senate Democrats, the legislation focuses relief on small and medium-sized banks that had complained they were unfairly burdened with regulations designed to prevent a future crisis.

Here’s the entire article –



Previously in this thread, I have written that the CFTC’s strangle-hold on retail forex would exist with or without Dodd-Frank. The legislation that gives the CFTC control over retail forex pre-dates Dodd-Frank. So, even if Trump manages – sometime in the future – to scrap the whole damn thing, U.S. residents trading through U.S. brokers will still be stuck with restricted leverage, the FIFO rule, and the prohibition against hedging.

Here’s a post that might be of interest to you –

1 Like

The control-freaks at the CFTC are not being restrained – they are extending their control.

In the post above (post #4894), I linked to a previous post in which I ran through a brief history of the CFTC. In one paragraph, I wrote this –

  • “The CFTC’s authority over retail “rolling spot” forex transactions was repeatedly challenged in the courts, on the grounds that “rolling spot” forex transactions were not futures contracts, and therefore the CFTC had no jurisdiction over them. In the most notable case, CFTC v. Zelener (2004), the Seventh Circuit Court ruled against the CFTC, and in favor of defendant Zelener, exempting “rolling spot” forex transactions from CFTC jurisdiction.”

That paragraph makes clear that the CFTC’s mandate was (originally) to regulate futures contracts on U.S. futures exchanges. Accordingly, the courts struck down the CFTC’s attempts to extend their authority to include retail forex – because a retail forex position does not satisfy the definition of a futures contract.

After years of battle in the courts, the control-freaks won, and now retail forex is regulated by the CFTC, on the basis that rolling spot forex transactions look enough like futures contracts that we’ll just go ahead and pretend that they actually are futures contracts.

Language – and even specific legal terminology – can be twisted into a pretzel by control-freaks.

Fasten your seat-belt.

If you think the CFTC is limited to regulating futures – well, you don’t appreciate the territorial ambitions of the CFTC.

They want to regulate cryptocurrencies. But, there’s just no way to twist the language- pretzel tight enough to make cryptocurrencies fit the definition of a futures contract.

That’s no problem for the control-freaks. They simply claim that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission should have control over anything that can be classified as a commodity, whether it has anything to do with futures, or not.

See what you can do with the language-pretzel? You can interpret commodity futures to mean commodities or futures. Then, all you have to do is get your buddies at the SEC to declare that cryptocurrencies are not currencies – instead, they are commodities – and presto! you’ve seized control of cryptocurrency regulation, just like you seized control of retail forex regulation.

It’s good to work for the CFTC, or anywhere else in the Deep State, if you’re a control-freak.

2 Likes
  1. I didn’t know there were 16 Tier 1 (Prime Broker) Liquidity providers, lol
  2. How many Tier 1 relationships does the typical Prime of Prime have? (Usually 1 or maybe 2).
    How many of these PoPs are offshore?

Glad someone is actually thinking this through before they deposit :smirk:

Why is it taking so long? A withdraw should be fully processed within 24 business hours.
That must have been quite painful. Hopefully we won’t see you over at FPA Scam Alerts folder.

@cipher03 CAN YOU CLARIFY your comments about TurnKey Fx Demo server registering as a “Real” account? What do you mean, and is this referring to MetaTrader 4? I don’t use Demo accounts, only LIve ones, but I have accounts with TurnkeyForex and FinProTrading, both of which use these MT4 server definition files: TurnkeyFX-Demo.srv and TurnkeyFX-Live.srv

hyperscalper

Is there a site, maybe called:
QAnon_CFTC.pub ? Does anyone have “inside information” on
"the revolution" which would put these folks in jail? You know,
like the patiots’ thing qanon.pub ? Where we can get the
inside information on where CFTC is going, as part of the
Deep State ? We need our “Q” to give us some hope that
we can eventually escape the shackles of CFTC… ya know…

DISCLAIMER: I am neither a part of the Deep State, nor those
who seek to overthrow it, if it really exists… I just want to get
back my freedom to choose more brokers, like everyone
else in this thread… :slight_smile:

hyperscalper

FOLLOWUP ON IC MARKETS

…I followed up on how an IC Markets account was established,
and basically U.S. persons cannot get one… The story, in short,
was that a “trading group” collectively was able to establish a
high net worth claim, and kind of “collectively qualify” as sort of a
"QEP-like" entity, so they were able to establish accounts…

Anyway, not a tactic which would work for any of us individuals…
So, from a practical perspective, IC Markets is not an option
for U.S. persons.

hyperscalper

yes i believe TurnkeyFX-Demo is responding with a parameter of “Real” instead of “Demo”. so EAs, Third Party services such as Myfxbook, believe TurnkeyFX-Demo is actually a real account versus a demo account.

this is no big deal for Myfxbook, as you can change the dropdown (which initially defaults to what the server responds with – for TurnkeyFX-Demo it is Real) to whatever you like. but this is a potential issue for commercial EAs which rely on this parameter to determine if you are using a Real account or not.

many commercial EAs limit the amount of real accounts you have on a per license basis. as an example, if you buy 1 license for an EA, there is a chance you can’t run a real account with a demo simultaneously on FinPro. this can be an issue if you like to test different settings on the demo, etc.

one other topic i would like to add is security – FinProTrading does not have any two step authentication anywhere. this is very surprising for a broker in 2018 not to have any sort of authentication for logins, withdrawals, etc.

i will say though that FinProTrading spreads are amazing, and i hope they add Two Step Authentication soon, as i would like to use them for many of my EAs which are spread dependent.

OK, thanks, I have no earthly idea about MyFxBook or how it figures
out LIve versus Demo… At 21:00 GMT and for that hour period thereafter,
especially on pairs such as GBP/NZD… FinProTrading/ TurnkeyForex
(both using TurnkeyFX as the liquidity aggregator) has terrible spreads,
but most of the time, although it is a very reactive spread, it has very
good spreads, with excellent execution precision… Yes, any BOT which
is dependent upon tight pricing, must monitor the spreads dynamically,
since they are, as I said “reactive” on these brokers. They also generate
maybe as much as 10x the incoming Market data than the lesser
brokers do… That’s an issue if you process every tick, as I do…
across 28 Forex pairs. Most impressive are the very low commissions,
all of which technicals, taken together, put most other brokerages in the shade.

My code checks the “isDemo” flag, but unfortunately, I never connect to
Demo accounts, so I don’t know about your claim…

hyperscalper