thanks to our excellent moderators, “mrharrypooter” is no longer with us, but it’s still worth responding to his post above, to avoid other members being misled by a couple of inaccurate things he said, and to correct some very bad advice offered
but at the same time, let’s also acknowledge that some of what he said was exactly right and well worth pointing out!
that’s exactly right
no, that isn’t what happened
their bank accounts were not “seized” by anyone - they were temporarily frozen by a temporary court order at the request of regulators, and when the case is heard (end of October) if what the regulators allege turns out to be true, they may then be seized by the court and become the property of the temporary receiver appointed - that’s just how these things work
let’s remember that the case hasn’t even been heard yet: it’s all “allegation”
my own guess is that the allegations are mostly true, because they seem to be based on inside information from a “whistleblower” and some of them even seem to be documented, but it’s only a guess and guessing is all anyone can do, at this point
that’s one theoretical possibility, but it’s not actually what normally happens, in these cases
no, that’s just completely wrong: the “instant funding” models actually account for less than 1% of the industry’s turnover
well, yes and no: the regulator’s complaint specifies that they took in $310M throughout the lifespan of the business, and after paying out big affiliate commissions, staff salaries and all their other costs, it still actually paid out over $170M of that money to their successful traders
let’s be aware that they paid out, from what they took, at least $100M MORE than any counterparty forex-broker would have done, from the same deposited funds, over the same period (and i’m understating it!)
that perhaps puts it in a slightly different perspective, doesn’t it? 
that’s bad advice in the sense that it’s hugely inadequate: most regulators don’t and can’t protect the customers at all
it has to be a PROPERLY regulated brokerage, otherwise you think you have some potential protection when you actually have none
that means regulated by the FCA, by ASIC, or by the CFTC or NFA
period
other regulators in obscure Caribbean, Pacific and other small countries are fake/pretend ones (ok, CySEC in Cyprus isn’t completely horrible, but it’s the only other semi-respectable one) and they’re paid for by the people they “regulate” and they never rule against their paymasters
people need to know this!
it really, really is the Wild West, out there
these threads will help anyone willing to put in the effort of reading them …