When you go to sign up their is no selection for USA. So you can not create a account as USA with that broker. I just verified there is no US Selection on their account create form!
1 Like
Strange. The Open Account page does not prompt me for any country at all. Just a phone number with a country code.
And my KYC docs were just accepted. I guess probably automated. I wonât fund unless I have a good reason, as it sounds like my account could be short-lived.
As soon as you put in your phone number you haft to then put in country before their system will allow you to create a accountâŚso I do not see how you created a account with them by putting in just a phone number only. Their system will not allow just a phone number to create a account.
1 Like
That isnât so for me. Once a valid number is input the country drop-down goes away. I would assume theyâd blacklist +1 US country code but here we are. I still wonât trade with them unless it gives me some edge. Good luck trading all and thanks again for the thread.
Yes, youâre correct. I got to the point where I could actual deposit. I think the issue will present itself once docs are sent. However, they should be much clearer regarding not accepting US clients. Unless, of course, they will take you as long as you donât ask, in that way, they are not soliciting.
2 Likes
Interesting, when you do trade with them. I would like to know how fast it takes to get your money out via USDT. If transfer is automated or people haft to approve the transfer.
1 Like
NordFX â now thereâs a name from the long-ago past.
Less than a month after this thread was started, NordFX told us that they were not affected by the CFTCâs regulations, and therefore they would accept U.S. clients. So, we added NordFX to our List in October 2010 (see post #211).
Then, about four months later, NordFX bailed out on us, and we removed them from the List in February 2011 (see post #511).
So, if weâre seriously considering NordFX once again, letâs make sure we get it right this time.
3 Likes
One would hope, that, once a broker has exhibited compliance (or refusal to accept radioactive traders), that they may eventually feel comfortable allowing such traders back in, once they are no longer a target, so long as it is done so in a discreet, seemingly-oblivious manner.
The question would remain, however, about what sort of reporting compliance they may or may not have as it relates to the KYC documents that they collect. In such cases that are locally-based, the requirement to report may be enforced by banks/liquidity providers and/or for anti-money laundering procedures etc⌠That being said, we may likely never know unless someone actually tries, trades with them for some time and successfully withdraws a large sum of money.
In some cases (countries), KYC may be required, but the liquidity providers and cyber crimes organizations that require reporting may not care about CFTC or other US-based nonsenseâŚand that may be true even if their country does have some reciprocity agreements with the United States. So such reporting may not even matter.
Then the only real concern is having the CFTC or other groups finding out about your activities, conducting an investigation and then slapping you with massive fines, at the very least, etcâŚ
Unfortunately, my limited knowledge only allows me to speculate on the matter and the varying circumstances due to an abundance of differing factors may only make matters all the more difficult to properly discern or come to any definitive understanding.
1 Like
Thatâs interesting. I may have to check them out and see what else they may be offering.
I have noticed the zero spreads on a few of the majors as well. They literally donât move, even during EOD rollover.
1 Like
Well, the not moving at rollover is actually a bit concerning to me. True STP/ECN would definitely see wider spreads at that time.
Truth be told, I never trade them. When trading via broker, I usually stick to S&P500, gold, oil etc⌠But the spreads are usually junk for scalping, so anytime I can find a good offering on my preferred pairs is a good thing.
1 Like
Who do you use for those?
I was using Coinexx. Stopped trading forex and went back to crypto for a while. Now looking at forex again, but the spreads are not great on CoinexxâŚespecially for gold. Been looking at CryptoRocket since the spreads for SPX are better than Coinexx.
EDIT: I always trade the demo a bit before going live, for any new broker that I try out. And one thing that Iâve noticed with CryptoRocket, is that my MT4 freezes up from time to time. Iâm not sure why, but it is quite frustrating.
2 Likes
Yeah I been humping the DOW exclusively for the last month or so. Coinexx spreads is about 2points on that. Same with LQDFX, Eagle, CryptoRocket, etc. FXChoice is the only one that seems to be a little higher with about 3-4 points.
2 Likes
Yeah, the volatility has been good. Trading SPX has been fun. Coinexx spreads have caused me to look elsewhere. They need to get things sorted. I fear that they are milking it. If volatility is used as justification for the widening of spreads, and it has lasted this long, then they should really consider looking for more LPâs. Assuming that is the truth.
2 Likes
I have a futures account at AMP via Optimus that im going to utilize. DOW micro and miniâs.
I agree completely with the points made above. Regulatory circumstances change, and broker policies can (and should) change accordingly. Furthermore, our acceptance or rejection of offshore brokers should be similarly flexible.
As hinted at above, itâs conceivable that a broker will state publicly that they do not host U.S. clients â while, at the same time, having a private policy of hosting those very same U.S. clients on a donât-ask-donât-tell basis.
So, regarding NordFX, our past history with them should, in no way, prevent a future relationship â provided we can establish that they will host U.S. clients, and will adhere to the same high standards that we require of all our listed offshore brokers.
I disagree here. The CFTC has no jurisdiction over individual traders. There has never been a case in which the CFTC prosecuted a trader, for trading with a so-called illegal broker (offshore, or otherwise).
The CFTCâs jurisdiction extends to brokers, dealers, IBâs, CFAâs, etc., who offer services to U.S.-resident traders.
So, donât worry about fines (massive, or otherwise) from the CFTC levied against you.
Brokers, on the other hand, need to protect themselves from such fines.
And donât worry about the IRS or the Treasury Department either, provided you have (1) honestly reported your trading income and paid whatever taxes are due, and (2) honestly revealed your offshore accounts, if required to do so, on the Treasury Departmentâs FBAR.
The IRS doesnât care whether the CFTC likes your broker, or not. The IRS only cares about getting their cut of your earnings, wherever those earnings may come from. The Treasury Departmentâs FBAR backstops the IRS, by helping to catch bigger fish (traders with larger offshore accounts) who might be tempted to hide their earnings from the IRS.
The CFTC canât touch you, no matter who you trade with.
And the IRS will leave you alone, as well, provided you keep your nose clean where taxes and reporting are concerned.
3 Likes
My comment was in reference to brokers, not traders. 
Thanks for clarifying.