Well, first they took our hundreds of brokers away, then when we all went offshore they took all of our payment processors away, now if they take the platforms away…well…mission accomplished.Fortunately, they will still allow folks to risk their life savings on blackjack, roulette, slots, lottery tickets and now in most states sports betting. Everything where the odds are stacked HEAVILY against you, but hey…no way we are going to let you risk money on something you may actually have an edge in your favor…
3 Likes
The regulators in America and Europe would have to flat out-sanction metatrader . Even if they do that, offshore brokers will have to come up with another platform for traders to trade on, because a flat-out sanction will affect every trader they have. No country will allow an offshore broker in their country if they are using mt-4 / 5 because of the sanction
In this case, I think the ban is more about the war and not about stopping U.S. traders from trading with offshore brokers.
-Fortunately, that cannot be done. Even if such programs are ‘blocked’ on various marketplaces, they will always be available in some capacity. I have several copies of metatrader already downloaded onto my computer. They are not going anywhere unless I choose to remove them. The only way to fully stop trading is to go to the source, which would be at the exchange level.
The question that I have, is, what is this act of removal actually accomplishing? Metatrader is free and downloadable from so many sources now. It cannot be simply blocked. I do not trade using mobile, so I am assuming that there is some sort of ad revenue that is being generated (blocked) by doing this? Or?
1 Like
Anyone know where OspreyFx is getting regulatory pressure from?
1 Like
They are probably doing this because of the war and don’t want to be known as a broker who doesn’t know their customers.
Coinexx started doing this when their trader’s account reached 50k.
I signed up in the past to look them over but don’t trade with them. Are they Russia based?
Is it a coincidence that Metaquotes has been kicked out of Apple? I recall that more than a few offshore brokers have Russian connections.
On your Coinexx comment- KYC above 50k but still not a problem if you’re a US citizen?
Forbes article about Metaquotes ban from appstore.
2 Likes
Don’t think they are Russia base. Offshore brokers will be under heavy scrutiny due to the war and regulators will find any excuse to slap them down
1 Like
I just saw this.
Crypto exchange FTX US wins bid to acquire Voyager’s assets
Voyager’s customers will be able to transfer their assets to the FTX US platform when the bankruptcy process is concluded. The New York-based company also noted that the purchase agreement will be presented in court for approval on 19 October.
1 Like
They already did that with cTrader, a better platform than MT ever was…
The platform didn’t meet the new guidelines of government regulators, but Ctraders fixed the problem, Brokers doesn’t provide Ctrader for other reasons, some of which can be explained here.
FAQ: Why Brokers Don’t Offer cTrader?
There is no denying the fact that MetaTrader 4 dominates the market. Most Forex and CFD brokers offer the platform, and most wouldn’t even consider not offering this platform. Since MetaQuotes have begun to aggressively phase out MT4, MetaTrader 5 has started to get more traction. Let’s explore why brokers don’t offer cTrader.
What are the Reasons Why Brokers Don’t Offer cTrader
There are a few primary reasons why brokers have been reluctant to adopt cTrader. Most of the reasons have little to do with the platform its self or the company. They are mostly business factors.
Cost
Cost is obviously a very important factor. cTrader and MT4 have very different pricing models. With MT4, the broker simply pays a one-time license fee and a fixed monthly support fee. Even though the broker is stuck with the responsibility of hosting and maintaining the platform, this model seems to be preferable. On paper, it looks like they are not paying a lot for the technology, however, the other resources do add up. cTrader, on the other hand, has low setup costs (in comparison), but they charge a volume fee. This means the broker pays for every trade you make. However, this is well justified because of Spotware hosting and supporting the platform, not the broker. Also, Spotware invests a lot into developing new features that add value to traders.
Learning Curve
Because there are so many resources already out there on the internet for MT4, traders can find information easily and the broker doesn’t need to invest in educating traders. There are hundreds or even thousands of websites like ours but dedicated to MetaTrader.
Brokers Can’t Manipulate cTrader
For the hundreds of unregulated or offshore brokers out there, cTrader is not a viable solution for them. The cTrader platform does not let brokers manipulate trading history or open positions. Because cTrader is hosted by Spotware, brokers don’t have the access to modify data in the database. Fraud brokers are known to do this to make their clients lose. MT4 is designed in a way that this is quite easy for brokers. Obviously regulated brokers wouldn’t do this since they are audited and they will get caught out.
No Plugins
Similar to the above point, brokers can’t install plugins on the server since Spotware hosts the platform. Brokers may want to install plugins for both good and bad reasons. Yes, plugins can be used for manipulation, such as Stop Loss hunting. But they can also be used for good reasons. In MT4, plugins can be used for bonuses, swap free accounts and other valid reasons. Spotware develops all such features for cTrader themselves. This can be a bit uncomfortable for brokers because they may not agree with the way the features work or they may not want to wait for Spotware to do the development. There is a bit less functionality in this respect.
Maintaining Two Platforms
Brokers need to integrate their trading platforms with their CRM. Adding cTrader means they need to perform the integration and maintain it. This is a business obstacle for the broker. The broker will need to support clients on two separate systems, manage liquidity and exposure risk on two different platforms as well. This adds operational complexity to the brokers business and a lot of smaller brokers are not in a position to take this on.
Narrow Minded
Some people are just narrow-minded. They only embrace things that are fashionable or popular and don’t give a second thought to things which are not. Unfortunately, that’ just the way a lot of people are. People are afraid of change and often reluctant to new ideas.
While there are not a lot of cTrader brokers out there. Don’t worry. We have a list of every cTrader broker on our website and we have reviewed some of our favourites.
3 Likes
-Yes, this is a legitimate concern. I do not know much about it, but I wonder if similar manipulation can occur when a broker/prop is making use of their own server, regardless of the platform that is being used. Certainly, it is very unfortunate that such manipulation is something that we, as traders, need to worry about, in addition to everything else.
1 Like
Great info. On CTrader vs MT4, there is also the problem of regulators chasing smaller players out of the country. JForex was awesome and was suddenly no longer an option.
MT4 allows broker cheat plugins like “price changer”. It’s true. But what choice do you have?
There is FIX API uf you are a big player.
A few brokers have a REST API, which is my go-to. Unfortunately, the FBI raided 1broker so there’s one less REST API.
MQL4 is very similar to C. CTrader is what?, C# and .NET . Not my first choice for a programming environment. Not likely to code for it just to see it suddenly disappear.
Although your info is interesting. If CTrader safety features to prevent cheating are legit, I might reconsider
Now I use MT4 with small accounts and stop using any broker that loses compared to one that wins. It’s not perfect, but choices are limited.
I can’t see what happens on the broker side, so simply assume the worst. I figure if price gets somewhat close to stop loss, many brokers will fudge it in their favor. If I get close to take profit, I often close the trade (because I don’t trust them not to fudge it in their favor). The deck is stacked against us. The one thing we can do is trade small with several brokers and fire the ones that perform poorly compared to the others.
Never bet the farm. I don’t understand when people blow a fortune on any broker. Do not trust strangers. Do not risk what you cannot lose. Any money you deposit is then out of your control.
2 Likes
I can’t 100% agree with this, but I get your point. My trading profit from offshore brokers has brought me a house with no mortgage, cars, and many other luxury items and continues to do so. As long as I pay my taxes, all is good on my end.
EDIT: I’m only given my personal experience with offshore brokers; other people might have different experiences, good or bad
I mean do not completely trust any broker… regulated or not.
When I read about people that lost their life savings, for example, I have a hard time with it.
I doubt you got where you are risking absolutely everything.
I am not saying don’t take risks. In fact, I think it is necessary to take risks to better situation in life.
But then there is the person that lost so much and caused Apple store to remove MT4. I feel badly for him. I personally think Metaquotes should make effort to stop nefarious actors, both because it is ethical and to protect their brand. Still, how do you put so much faith in a broker in the first place? Any one of them, regulated or not, could screw you over at any time. The exception would be in the UK where your money is insured.
1 Like
I 100% agree with this, the problem with most people getting into forex is that they think it’s a get rich quick kind of business, and even though there are those who have made a great deal of money in forex, that does not mean you will be one of them. I believe it’s all about your system and how you apply it, as well as using a broker that pays large withdrawals easily.
1 Like
You provide some of the best posts with details on withdrawals.
If a broker quickly and consistently gives you all of your money when you request it with no questions asked, it’s a very good sign.
1 Like
I don’t know how you guys feel about this, For me, the United States regulators have always handled other securities in the same way. My only concern is that they will use crypto to push for more regulations on crypto that might go too far.
With Kim Kardashian Fined $1.3 Million for Crypto Promotion, Which Other Celebs Could Be in Trouble?
Kardashian’s charges stem from a post shared on her Instagram Story in June 2021. “ARE YOU GUYS INTO CRYPTO???” read the text, which went on to hype EMAX tokens, a security asset offered by EthereumMax. The value of those tokens has fallen by about 99 percent since its peak that May. But this collapse wasn’t Kardashian’s biggest problem. Although she included an #AD hashtag in the Story, the SEC judged that she had failed to disclose her $250,000 payment from EthereumMax for the wide-reaching endorsement. Her fine includes a repayment of this amount, plus interest, and a separate $1 million fine.
SEC Chair Gary Gensler tweeted a video asking investors to weigh the risks of buying cryptocurrencies, particularly those hyped by famous or influential figures. “Ms. Kardashian’s case also serves as a reminder to celebrities and others that the law requires them to disclose to the public when and how much they are paid to promote investing in securities,” he said. The replies to his post were predictably swarmed by angry crypto enthusiasts.
2 Likes
As far as regulation is concerned, I typically lean in favor of the idea that less is better. I believe that people that want to invest their own money should be able to do so, freely, but that they should also educate themselves and take responsibility for the associated risks involved.
Since such laws do exist, however, then I believe that these rich celebrities should not be immune to the law and should be subject to the same rules and regulations as everyone else. There is no excuse for ignorance, especially when you can afford a good attorney to help you navigate these things.
I just wish that we did not need this kind of regulation in the first place, and that we were free to do as we wish, including facing whatever consequences that may come from our poor decisions without 3rd-party intervention swooping in to help us. This does not mean that scammers should be able to operate without consequence; there is a big difference.
This is where there is a disconnect… by all means, regulate and police the scammers and bad actors; but do not try to child-proof everything and meddle with stupidity. If people are dumb enough to follow bad advice, then let them freely do that; the lesson should be theirs to learn (so long as it does not hurt others without choice involved).
So the question is whether or not individuals should face fines for not following proper guidelines when promoting something (or that such guidelines/requirements should exist in the first place). Obviously, they should not.
You do not see celebrities making their own disclaimers when promoting cigarettes, alcohol or weapons etc… It is up to the companies and manufacturers to do that, to cover their own butts (assuming that they do not want to be sued). But it is a choice. The companies have a choice to ensure liability protection, and the consumer has a choice to ensure their own safety and protection.
If the product is faulty (or produced in bad faith; bad actors), then by all means, charge them with something.
I think that we are stuck in an old paradigm that needs to change. The fact that we treat the financial sector so differently, so much more strictly, just shows the gross misjudgement (and apparent greed) that continues to stifle progress in this country.
2 Likes
That “might go too far” train had left the station years ago. The past 5-7 years have been a slow creep of US regulators tightening the noose. That’s why a good portion of crypto exchanges have banned US customers or forced them to use watered down exchanges.
1 Like