-I think, when you start imposing these kinds of regulatory requirements on software developers, then you must ask yourself what will be next. It should not be up to Meta to do the job of others and to take on that responsibility.
Similarly, we should not hold gun manufacturers liable for what people decide to do with their products. It sets a bad precedent.
The end game is zero anonymity in any financial transaction, regardless the of size, platform, etc. If one chooses to dabble in trading for hobby, your trades will be known to regulating authorities.
Just as it is in CCP. US regulators have been salivating at that level of control for years.
Yes. And the more that people just accept what is instead of asking questions, the more we can expect of this kind of thing.
Even though it isnât easy to accept, we cannot stop them, so we must find alternative options, which shouldnât be necessary
The EU regulators who also limit leverage donât stop their citizens from seeking better alternatives. The US regulators are hell bent on stopping their citizens from finding better alternatives.
In this case, economic freedom does not exist.
Before you go to the trouble and expense of buying a citizenship in Grenada, you might check whether citizenship is the main obstacle to trading with many overseas brokers. I think that residency is the main issue, i.e., I think that brokers not registered in and regulated by the U.S. are not allowed to solicit U.S. residents (except for the very wealthy as noted in a recent post). In addition, some brokers do not want to deal with clients who are U.S. persons for other reasons, including citizenship, because of FATCA. But I think you might find reputable, well-established non-U.S. brokers who would take U.S. citizens who reside elsewhere.
For example, I just checked the website of IC Markets Global, which states: âRaw Trading Ltd [the actual name of the company] does not provide services for residents of certain countries such as the United States of America, Canada, Israel, New Zealand, Iran and North Korea (Democratic Peopleâs Republic of Korea) or a country where such distribution or use would be contrary to local law or regulation.â They say nothing about citizenship.
You would have to ask them, but I think they (or other brokers who do not accept U.S. residents) might take you if you simply moved to Mexico and kept your U.S. citizenship. (Info about moving to Mexico at mexicorelocationguideDOTcom.)
In the past, if you were a US citizen but lived in another country, they would have accepted you, but now if you are a US citizen regardless of where you live, they wonât accept you.
Regarding gun manufacturers I read your comment from earlier and it is just a not suitable example.
The regulation does not require MQ to check the customers of the customers. It is B2B and not B2B2C. This means the regulation has nothing to do with who are the clients of offshore brokers (or more specifically where they are coming from).
It simple means that if MQ is doing business with brokers than they need to follow some regulations and not just let people open offshore broker businesses without having some basic documents in place.
Unfortunately this statement is very likely to be true. We have stand up against as to my opinion it is unacceptable.
Still, we should do it with logical thinking and not use every opportunity to tackle regulation even if it makes sence in some cases. (you did not tackle in your post, it is more the general thinking here)
U.S. regulators already have a list of offshore brokers that accept U.S. residents. At any moment they can pressure MQ to give them information on these brokers so they can go after them. It saves them both time and resources.
Offshore brokers are able to accepted U.S. Residents only by hiding their identity, The information MQ is demanding is the information U.S. regulators are looking for in order to crack down on those offshore brokers.
Its clear the information MQ is demanding isnât industry standards If it were industry standards, brokers wouldnât switch to Tradelocker, which is powered by Trading View, or use the ACT Platform.
Shady means what? Because a broker can furnish all the information MQ desires and still implement a shady practice. MQ has no control over that, in fact they created the dealer plugin which can be used for shady purposes, Additionally, Iâm not sure how MQ Platforms can be used for anything else but trading
Have you ever felt that your broker is out to get you? Well, he may. Do a Google search on Virtual Dealer Plugin and MT4 and read up on it. It is pretty scary. The Forex Broker Virtual Dealer Plugin can corrupt your trading and eat your profits by using the automated execution delay feature. Learn all about this and read our report.
There is a Metaquotes PDF circulating in the internet that is a manual for brokers on how to use the infamous virtual dealer plugin. We would post this PDF here (along with a shocking video showing the plugin in action) but no doubt we would be contacted by Metaquotes (like so many other websites) for copyright infringement and forced to delete it.
The PDF document reveals what we all expected, that there is software out there that allows the broker to engage in a number of dirty tricks, namely:
Donât forget âprice changerâ!
See post 5969 and thise surrounding it.
-I was specifically told by a broker that they were required to collect KYC documents from me in order to issue me a demo account, else risk losing their meta license, due to the new requirements.
Whether or not that is true, is unknown. But the fact remains that the new requirements that are being imposed by Meta, are a direct result of over-reaching regulation and that such actions have resulted in companies like Meta acting on behalf or as a proxy for various regulatory groups through 3rd-party compliance-enforcement.
Using the gun example, it would be little different than gun manufacturers taking on the responsibility to ensure that all gun resellers/distributors remained in good standing with various regulatory requirements, as opposed to just selling them a product and letting said licensed resellers/distributors handle their own responsibilities of ensuring that all is above board.
It does not matter if the requirements have anything to do with the customer. The problem is that gun manufacturers are taking on the role of the regulator, and this should not happen. Not only does this set a bad precedent in terms of creating undue burden and unnecessary risk on private businesses by having them carry the weight of that responsibility, but it also creates a terrible trend that involves government regulation to seep into the cracks of every aspect of business and eventually, every aspect of life as we know it, to the point that we can do nothing without the governmentâs involvement. The potential problems that this would create go beyond the scope of this thread.
At what point do we ask ourselves if current regulation is too much or even necessary at all? When regulation becomes so restrictive and prohibitive, that it stops serving the good of the people (such as is the case now), we really need to start thinking about things differently and start asking the questions that no one else is asking.
Do we continue to sacrifice our freedoms (opportunities) and privacy for a false sense of security? It always amazes me when people defend regulation, but yet seem to have no clue about how it really benefits them, other than using the common excuses of anti-money laundering and criminal deterrence, which we all know is nonsense in many cases.
Tell me how forcing a broker to collect my personal information is going to help with that? It doesnât. In most cases, laws and regulation do not stop criminals, they create lack and burden for honest people. Letâs not forget the extremely profitable justification that it creates to impose on freewill and control others.
I have said this before. I am not against regulation. I am against over-regulation. The kind of regulation that no longer serves the good of the people. The kind of regulation that is hypocritical and suffocating, that turns me into a pariah and restricts me from doing what I want with my one, hard-earned money.
-Not only that, but criminals are not keen on following the rules. They work around the rules. They create fake documents and lie.
As stated, laws and regulation do not stop criminals; they create lack and burden for honest people in most cases.
Using the recent Meta requirements as an example, how has this provided benefit to the people and made things safer/better, when I am seeing long-standing, trusted brokers that have been providing opportunities for average people for years now, all of sudden, have to stop operations all because they do not (or cannot) subject themselves to the unjust and costly regulatory requirements being set by various regulatory groups, via Meta as proxy?
How is this better? I know of one broker that I strongly suspect is not above board, that has not been affected by this at all. Why? Probably because they do not follow the rules. They work around them. So, the honest brokers get hurt and the suspicious brokers continue to operate around the rules. Nothing new here.
Just because a business refuses to comply with unjust, unfair, costly and sometimes impossible regulation, does not mean that they are doing anything nefarious.
Weâve had this discussion >4 years ago here. Passports show place of birth, if it says United States⌠you better have your non US residency docs + proof of non US income + proof of non US address or US citizenship renunciation docs or youâre DOA.
After becoming a citizen of said country, it would be better to use other identification cards like driverâs license when dealing with businesses
-I do believe that this is probably the best route to remain fully-detached and âcleanâ. I suppose that some argument could be made for finding someone that you can trust and trading under their name, but it would be impossible to guarantee long-term, operational security.
That being said, I do not believe that renunciation is the only way. There are still ways around it, but they are not easy. You pretty much have to be willing/able to get your feet on the ground and sometimes even remain overseas for a while, at least.
With the CFTC determined to shut down the prop route to US citizens, I donât see another high leverage long term alternative other than day trading Futures.
you have companies that offer Nominee director and Nominee shareholder for your IBC, they will provide you with a copy of the nomineeâs passport and proof of their address.
The only problem with going this route, If you open an account under their names using those documents, the business can later ask you for a second ID, like a state ID or driverâs license.
The other way around it is an IBC with a non us citizen nominee director/manager + nominee share holder/member as they would be the signatory on financial accounts, but that requires A LOT of trust because that person will have the info to blackmail you and the control to rob you.