LQDFX has high stops level I think it’s like 20 where coinexx is 0.
[UPDATE] - yep just checked symbol properties for EURUSD shows stops level 20. I was running an EA on a demo account that had issues because of this. I finally stopped it, and I don’t plan on using this broker because of the stops level being so high.
Not very PC… 
Utilizing all of that leverage eh? Yikes! 
Yes, I completely agree. Walk away from any MT4 broker which
places any limitations on where you can place Limit (Pending)
orders or Stops or Targets… this is the 21st century.
[EDIT] I regularly place Limit orders inside the spread, 0.1 Pips away
from the Offer to Buy, or the Bid to Sell and wouldn’t work with
any broker that restricted such actions. When it comes to Stops,
in the MT4 system, they can be dangerous if the Bid/Ask spread
widens too much. This automatically triggers many positions
to Stop Out… So I don’t use broker stops, except as a distant
"safety net"…
hyperscalper
1 Like
I was trying to be helpful and warn you. Mocking me isn’t very helpful. The account had a huge loss where the EA running for the author where you track its performance with a different broker did not show that huge loss. The author of the EA warned me the stops level of 20 is not good and to avoid that broker.
[UPDATE^^]
can we please keep this about forex and forex brokers and keep your hidden agendas out of this discussion, thank you
2 Likes
Uhh, this is about a forex broker. I’m letting the group know that LQDFX has a stops level a 20.
[EDIT] I have a major concern with that broker and Hyperscalper agrees.
well good your talking about forex so my comment wasn’t about you,.
1 Like
Thanks for clarifying.
1 Like
To the group,
Should we add a caution for LQDFX listing at the top that stops level is 20 (for at least EURUSD) for folks who have strategies that may be affected by that?
Wait a minute… There is an option for brokers to control where you put your stops or targets? LOL! I thought we were talking about margin stop outs. That is seriously wrong… They’re trying to limit scalping?
I have a question for the community at large. I’m currently having a little problem connecting to a specific broker’s server IP. But I got to thinking… Coinexx MT4 platform shows three server locations for me in the States: UK, Amsterdam, and… strangely enough… Lansing, Michigan.
My question is this: What consequence is there of placing a trade through either of those locations with respect to the speed at which the order reaches the liquidity providers and the trade is registered? The quick answer might be the lowest ping rules - stop overthinking things.
But not so fast… Let’s say that you have two choices: Amsterdam or London, and the latency from my desk to each are exactly the same. Is it safe to assume that the LP’s are in London and all orders arriving at any server IP other than London, would be bounced (in milliseconds of course) to the final destination, which is Coinexx’s liquidity pool? In other words, there aren’t 3 individual Coinexx Forex markets occurring at each server location right? If not, then why isn’t there just one IP? What is the benefit of choosing the lowest latency IP if the order still has to reach the final destination (which might be at the higher latency IP)… or does it? Maybe our orders get timestamped at the servers we are connected to and adjusted once they hit the main hub?
Thanks for your thoughts on the matter.
-LAF
Wow. Thanks for the clear illustration, Pter. LQDFX is Fake News.
I don’t have an answer for all of your questions, but I can say that I have a vps in London for Coinexx. Side note, for FXChoice & Tradersway you would want Amsterdam. For Evolve Markets (which you can sign up using vps outside of the US) would be ironically New York.
You can find all broker’s servers using this link
LATENCIES TO SERVERS
Seems many of you are as much speed freaks as
I am. But having measured Ping latencies to servers,
versus round-trip Market Order execution times, it
is almost always the case that while raw ping latency
might be 1 msec out to 10 msecs or so; market order
round trip (from start to completion) is typically 60 msec
at the very low end to a couple of hundred msecs.
A 100 msec to 200 msec time is OK by me, so long as
it has very little variability, and so is consistent.
Anyway the server “raw” distance (in ping
msecs) contributes only a small proportion of the
overall performance delays…
[EDIT] here is performance I’m getting now, and
I consider it to be “slow” but it is adequately consistent.
SELL limit placements: 300, 139, 169 msecs
Cancel of limits: 229, 239, 419 msecs
Coinexx can do better than that, but this doesn’t
bother me too much.
hyperscalper
tax question here for those using offshore brokers: has anyone that is using an offshore FX broker, ever had issues with filing taxes for FX when opting out of Section 988 for Section 1256?
or do you file Section 988, ignoring the election and the Section 1256 savings on major currency pairs?
i will definitely talk to a trader CPA but any thoughts on this will be appreciated
I just used your link Pter, what a mind-blower!
There she is in all her glory. Coinexx-Live at 1.64ms!!
But what’s the deal with these MQL5 VPS servers? You have to subscribe separately for each broker account? And then you manage the server through your MT4 instance? Weird. I like the remote connection interface via Windows.
BTW, I just contacted Coinexx (they gave me a call) and they recommended using their free VPS. But I kinda want a VPS separate from their organization if ya know what I mean… 
reaches for the tinfoil hat
1 Like
If anybody is able to connect to Coinexx via a VPS at sub-2ms ping, please message me with the VPS provider. So frustrating… 