XtreamForex
I looked over their site, and didn’t see any problematic
issues. Looks like maybe Marshall Islands for regulation,
and did not appear to block U.S. persons…
Spreads looked a bit higher, but you can’t know unless
have a real live account. $7 / round trip ? Anyway,
nothing seemed to be an immediate show stopper to me…
Happy to have these additional broker options !!!
Thanks @SmallPaul !
hyperscalper
i figure you would be the one who look into these brokers, thanks for the info it’s all about team work 
some reviews on XtreamForex and Number 1 Capital Markets N1CM
https://www.forexpeacearmy.com/forex-reviews/12999/xtreamforex-forex-brokers
https://www.forexpeacearmy.com/forex-reviews/14053/n1cm-forex-brokers
hello Hyperscalper, why use LTC over GUSD or USDC for coinexx deposits? is there faster handling time for LTC over fiat-tethered crypto?
sorry for these nonsense question, I am contemplating opening an account with coinexx but I have never dealt with crypto denoted broker before.
Just open a USD account, and fund with LTC or similar crypto.
The implementation details of their USD accounts, as in what
"backs" their USD accounts, I just haven’t looked into that.
If it looks, acts and spends like USD then, to me, it’s USD ! 
hyperscalper
N1CM BROKER REPLY TO QUESTIONS[
quote=“HyperScalper, post:7101, topic:35612”]
…I submitted questions to them concerning
MT4 trade server location, market fill latencies, and
commission costs, so let’s see what they say…
[/quote]
For me, it is good that their trade servers are in the
Netherlands, since that is my preferred colocation.
Consistency <250 msecs is pretty good for a retail
Forex broker.
hyperscalper
Here is their reply:
"Hello,
Thank you for reaching out to us, our servers are located in the Netherlands. At N1CM 99% of trades are executed in less than 250 ms.
For all further inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact.
Sincerely
N1CM
+44 203 150 1310 "
COINEXX INTRODUCING 2FA FOR WITHDRAWAL AUTHORIZATION
They are beefing up security requiring an email account
authorization before any withdrawals can be taken,
for security purposes. Coinexx portal logins will require
clients to make a one-time password change.
[EDIT] Google Authenticator is available as an option
for further security. Perhaps it is not an email confirm…
[EDIT2] So clarifying, Coinexx will require a confirmatory
email response for Withdrawals by default; and Google
Authenticator is an optional additional security measure.
The email confirmation was only recently put into force,
and I am aware of a person whose account contents
were emptied probably by a Key Logger interception of
the email and password portal credentials 
That should not be possible now.
hyperscalper
Awesome stuff. Coinexx is ranking their way up in my list of brokers. thanks for keeping updates on them and all other brokers!
I am still using them without issue.
"In accordance with applicable rules and regulations laid out by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, n1cm.com is not permitted to accept any customers from the United States. "
AT first glance this may not seem related, but in reality I’m pretty freaked out. I figured this was the place to mention it because of our awareness of these international laws. It’s the proposed FATF recommendations to the 36 involved countries and the proposed FinCin changes for American cryptocurrencies MBS classification in regards to banking secrecy. I fear that they could exert pressure even more so on over sea exchanges to ban Americans even harder, and to effectively put an end to anonymous cryptocurrencie exchanges. They want to require money transmitters to know who is sending money to the exchange, and who owns the receiving wallet. It’s basically going to largely invalidate the purpose of cryptocurrencies. It’s also technically not possible with the blockchain, but they are using circumvention by tracking and black listing people who aren’t ‘registered’, enforcing international policing to make crypto money transmitters become ‘licensed’. It’s the FATF’s plan to essentially exclude wallets it can’t audit (say maybe a bunch of money from coinexx suddenly sets off internal flags and now you can’t use bitcoin atm’s or bitpay or coinbase or any american service (and most euro services). It all just seems to be headed in a bad direction.
https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/FinCEN%20Guidance%20CVC%20FINAL%20508.pdf
the men who own the world central banks are clapping down, they hate when money moves around with out them.
Let me shamelessly plug Wikipedia here:
hyperscalper
Law Enforcement will go after money laundering and they should continue to do so. Soceity needs to stop terrorists from blowing up innocent people. This isn’t the problem. The problem is the draconian prohibitions imposed on legitimate businesses.
We traders should not be in a position where we need to jump through hoops to transfer money in the first place.
Thanks for sharing these interesting developments that affect Forex traders, but they should not affect us at all. We are Forex traders, not terrorists.
don’t be fool after 9/11 the U.S. use that to crack the bank Bank secrecy laws in other countries, even switzerland folded under pressure so what start as we fighting terrorist always end up with another hidden agenda
I even posted similarly in bitcointalk forum and the admin deleted my mention of bitmex kyc. I can’t condone anyone to break bitmex tos and do things under the table, but I know it is not against the law, only against TOS. Forced KYC on anonymous crypto exchanges will create a very dangerous cascade of legal precedent and hurt American traders like myself a great deal. Just because some futures and forex are available does not mean I enjoy being forced out of the entire bitcoin economy by perversions of the bank secrecy act and being denied access to the greatest financial opportunity of my generation. I have an incentive to take risks because it supercedes their perceived definitions of things. I have to remind folks that in America, american citizens have no greater leverage than 5x on kraken, or 10x on fxchoice. That is unacceptable. I can’t tell people to circumvent laws or TOS, but I know what I am going to do. But it is tiresome, which is why I’m looking into making and IBC to register as a foreign entity to various brokerages. Most of this forum concerns options to retail traders, but the best true solution is to be a paid officer to a foreign entity. Which involves legal shell companies and trusts. Unforuntately living in Europe is getting more desirable, if you have to do it to chase crypto business opportunity.
A lot can be said about this topic, especially when considering multiple perspectives, but I’ve just not had the time to write anything up on it. In short, however, all of the crypto exchanges that are really worth mentioning already reject US traders, so I am not so sure that much would change. Most do not require KYC and use basic IP detection as a deterrence, unless you want to work with fiat, so workarounds still exist - for now. In order for things to change, these sweeping security laws would have to apply to all traders, not just US-based traders, which /is/ a possibility, considering the intent of these measures. So, any exchanges that sought to dodge compliance in this area would need to be operating out of a jurisdiction that afforded them that choice.
This leads me to the underlying question…what about trading via brokers? I know that Hugo’s Way makes their crypto trades (supposedly) through Bitfinex, for example, which does not allow US traders. In such a case, I do not see their exchange requiring KYC documents from all traders that make trades through the broker’s API. So, would the broker start requiring KYC from all traders that wished to trade crypto? Probably not. But I can only guess on that.
I just read an article that CoinBase was looking at incorporating margin-based trading, in an effort to compete with BitMex. CoinBase operates inside of the US, so it will be interesting to see what comes from this. I will not get my hopes up, as I suspect that the offerings will be horrible, but that’s just me.
We are fortunate to have choices outside of cryptocurrency, that afford us more options and flexibility. Things could be better, admittedly, but there has never been a better time to get into trading.
For me, if push came to shove, then I have few reservations about moving overseas, should my trading volume grow to a point that made such a decision justifiable. I might even consider dual citizenship or renouncing US citizenship if I was doing really, really well.
Objectively speaking, if we look at the bigger picture, the idea of having oversight and control for the sake of security makes sense on the surface. After all, I doubt anyone here would argue against that reasoning. However, things are never that simple. Everything always circles back to sacrificing freedom for security, and if history has taught us anything, we all know how this plays out.
So, while we do not and should not have a problem with stopping criminals, we absolutely should not ignore what this could eventually mean for non-criminals.
Unforuntately I guess a lot of people even in the crypto community did not understand the implications of what FinCen has planned. They are threatening the immutability and censorship capabilities of crypto. It goes beyond bitmex and is much more sinister. They are implying they want side chain development addons for crypto that institute kyc measures and forced licensure on crypto brokers as though they were banks, to be able to black list unauditible unpassable sources, political enemies, or whoever, for whatever arbitrary reason, and definitely to block withdraws. They can’t theorectically block deposits, but they can easily design website functions to hide and deny deposit addresses, by simply identifying and blacklisting people, forcing people into an unbanked, un’registered’ unapproved grey area, this would lead to people being pushed away and turned away from bitpay like commerce, etc. This is Electronic Freedom Foundation level international human rights level stuff they are engaging in. Crypto was made to escape this kind of stuff.
The specific change they are proposing is commanding that all these money transmitters know not who is using the exchange but who owns the deposit address that funds from the exchange are being sent to, it’s the travel rule from BSA. Now bitpay would need to know who is sending bitcoin to something - it’s the implication of knowing who is spending i.e., it isnt p2p cash anymore. Not to mention the unbanked global south who do not have proper identity papers, …venuzuelans have been able to transmit bitcoin to survive…this is just a work around for abusive sanctions disguised as BSA stuff I guarentee you
I think a lot of praise is given to blockchain technology when discussing cryptocurrency without giving much thought beyond what it can really offer and what it could mean for regular people if it were allowed to evolve in the way that it was intended, with full autonomy. The very creed and culture of cryptocurrency is being challenged as lawmakers are setting out to undermine its very nature by controlling it. The issue absolutely goes beyond simple freedoms and privacy rights.
Governments and corporations will use security and criminal deterrence as justification for a very wide range of unspoken solutions that will ultimately give them the control that they need to keep the current systems in place that favor the minority. The reasoning is not difficult to understand for anyone that truly sees the value that cryptocurrency can offer and the impact that it could have on the current financial systems.
The reaction that we are seeing was predictable. The people behind the people that are proposing these new policies know exactly what they are doing. If history has taught us anything, we can expect that the changes will occur over time, and in a subtle way, so as to not attract too much attention or cause people to think too much about them so that when the time comes that people actually wake up and realize what has actually happened, it will be too late to solicit any real change.
What we allow to happen in these early stages will define the future of cryptocurrency. People should not be too quick to accept the idea that this is all for the sake of security and crime prevention. There are solutions already in place for those things. My hope would be that people will care enough to educate themselves so that they may be better-equipped to challenge any questionable proposals that perpetuate the problems that we currently face. But…I suspect that ignorance and apathy will win in the end, as it usually does.
It does not help that the lawmakers that are being persuaded to formulate effective legislation are being advised by the very same people that likely value the current systems that are already in place. Lawmakers need to be properly educated and hear all arguments, from all sides, so that they can make informed decisions.
Let us consider, for a moment, the argument for money laundering. How is requiring KYC at the exchange or wallet level going to solve this problem? There is absolutely nothing that you can do to stop people from making private, untraceable, physical exchanges without being physically present. If someone wants to exchange crypto for fiat, or vice versa, they can do so, whether useless KYC legislation exists or not. Furthermore, there is nothing to stop someone from transferring money out to another wallet, converting funds to an untraceable cryptocurrency, then back to a totally different wallet etc… Such newly-proposed KYC legislation does nothing except burden non-criminals, invade our privacy and extend the already, long-armed reach of US regulatory bodies. If criminals want to break the law, they will continue to do so. It used to be that criminals could simply walk into a casino and drop cash down for chips and then turn around and cash them out for clean money, which would be a lot simpler than dealing with crypto. Not sure if things have changed with that, but one would think so by now.
Having KYC requirements at the banking level makes sense, and it works. Having such requirements at the exchange level (assuming non-fiat exchange) or wallet level is nonsensical and likely serves some unspoken agenda. If you want to combat laundering, then target fiat-to-crypto or crypto-to-fiat exchanges and transfers - be that at the banking level, via sites like CoinBase, localbitcoins, craigslist or an oddball exchange like Bitfinex etc…
A point worth mentioning here, is that all of the aforementioned, with the exception of peer-to-peer solutions such as localbitcoins and craigslist, already have KYC requirements in place. So we should ask ourselves, who really benefits from this newly-proposed legislation and what are the real reasons behind it?
The crux of Crypto is that it eliminates the 3rd party in a transaction.
Complete anonymity is not required and I would argue that its not even desirable, because of the few who use it to cover truly heinous activity. Far better to have complete transparency.
Let everyone see ALL money movements, especially those of people in power.
One principle of effective law enforcement is to serve the people. The people’s support is key. We have some laws that are both inhibiting trading and technology, and resulting in innovation and money going overseas. This is counterproductive.
Go after terrorists and human traffickers.
And let people trade and innovators innovate.
Encourage commerce.
For all this to work properly a transparent and accountable government is required.
Ideally, we shouldn’t need anonymity.
Thanks all for your contributions. The topic is very interesting and I think it is very applicable to our predicament.