All I see is repeated promotion of Tradeday — over and over, in every thread — while launching baseless attacks on any other firm that doesn’t fit your narrative. You say you’re against promotional posts, yet your entire activity here reads like one long marketing campaign for futures-only prop firms.
You’re just throwing around accusations that aren’t grounded in anything verifiable. Criticism is fine — if it’s backed by facts. Yours isn’t. And that makes your double standard pretty clear.
Get over it guys! 
There’s a lot of antipathy, hostility and argument, here. All of it’s both unnecessary and unhelpful. 
The facts are the facts, and they’re really easily verifiable by anyone who does any due diligence at all. I just looked into it for 15 minutes and very quickly understood the issue, as anyone can. It’s actually very simple indeed.
There are two different brokers. They’re completely separate companies, and they’re registered as limited companies in different countries.
Axi Select is owned and run by a broker called AxiTrader Limited. That’s the broker to which customers trying to qualify, through the prop firm, have to send their $500. The broker has no UK presence and doesn’t do business in the UK and wouldn’t be allowed to, because it isn’t regulated by the FCA.
There’s also another, entirely separate, UK broker called Axi Financial Services (UK) Limited, which has absolutely nothing to do with Axi Select at all, and that’s regulated by the FCA, but this has absolutely ZERO relevance to Axi Select customers at all.
To tell people, or to imply, that either Axi Select or the broker running it, is FCA-regulated is either downright dishonest or (if that’s not the actual intention) at the very least totally mistaken.
Either way, it just isn’t true. Period.
No. That simply ISN’T so.
Here is a forum post in which Greg Rubin, who describes himself as the Head of Axi Select, says “The Axi Select program is only available to clients of AxiTrader Limited which is incorporated in St Vincent and the Grenadines.” That’s the broker that ISN’T regulated by the FCA.
Anyone looking at that thread might wish to know, firstly, that the registered “Commercial Member” there posting under the name “profitfarmer” also posts here at Babypips (but without declaring here that he’s a commercial member) under the name “tingtong” and, secondly, that there’s also a Babypips thread about Axi Select.
(My own guess - and of course this part isn’t factual at all: it’s literally only a guess - is that anyone reading all that Babypips thread carefully enough, either as part of their basic due diligence or for any other reason, will probably have nothing to do with Axi Select at all: I think quite a bit of the attempted “forum marketing” done by AxiTrader Limited (SVG) is shockingly bad and probably directly counter-productive. Again, that’s my opinion only, but the rest of my post, above, is both factual and verifiable.)
Shall we leave it alone, now (“she asked optimistically”)? 
Let me keep it simple — from the very beginning, I’ve clearly said: “The FCA regulates Axi’s brokerage operations, not the internal funding program.” That hasn’t changed. No one ever claimed the funding arm is FCA-regulated.
And again, the $500 isn’t a fee — it’s trading capital you can withdraw. In most other firms, you pay for a challenge or evaluation phase, and that payment is non-refundable. Here, you’re placing $500 on your real trading account, not paying to trade on a demo. And yes — that money can be withdrawn if you choose to stop.
The real problem here isn’t axi select — it’s that people keep repeating the same accusations without offering a single piece of solid evidence. If there’s actual proof of wrongdoing, let’s see it.
No hard feelings or negativity from my side.
For God’s sake - it isn’t true!!
The FCA regulates the broker Axi Financial Services (UK) Limited, which has nothing to do with Axi Select. It doesn’t regulate the broker AxiTrader Limited, which operates Axi Select.
So STOP telling people that “the broker is FCA-regulated”. It’s not true!
Exactly — I’ve said FCA regulation applies to the brokerage operations, not the funding program. Never claimed otherwise.
Seels like we’re reading the same text but seeing two completely different things.
You’ve said it many times, but it isn’t true. And you know that. It regulates only one part of them, and that’s the part that has no connection at all with Axi Select.
The head of Axi Select has said so, himself, in black and white (see the link above)!
Your persistently repeated, untruthful claims that the broker running Axi Select “is FCA-regulated” are just blatantly dishonest. Have you no shame at all?!
I think that’s probably right.
It’s because you interpret two different things by the term “the broker”: you’re using it to mean “Axi in general” and everyone else posting (here and in other places) is using it to mean “the broker that runs Axi Select”.
That’s why so much of the conversation is at cross purposes.
The point I think you’re misunderstanding, Paul, is that there’s actually no such thing as “Axi in general”, but there are actually two different, separate companies in two different countries, and the one that owns and runs Axi Select is NOT regulated by the FCA as you keep wrongly alleging.
I think it’s about as simple as that, really: you just made a little mistake here, and you don’t want to admit it, for whatever reason?
It’s not actually that important, because anyone and everyone reading this thread and/or the stuff linked to in this thread can see, perfectly easily, what’s really going on, here.
Sure, it’s unfortunate that Axi (SVG, the Axi Select one!) pays people to post good things about them and to defend them in forums, but so do loads of brokers: they think of it as “public relations”, not “dishonesty”.
Let’s all move on, and get on with our lives, now? 
Let’s not twist this any further. I’ve always said — very clearly — that FCA regulation applies to the brokerage side, not the Axi Select program. That’s never changed, and no amount of repetition will turn that into something I didn’t say.
But what’s really going on here is hard to ignore. We’ve got a handful of users repeating the exact same talking points, often sidestepping questions, offering zero hard evidence, and somehow always circling back to promote “a better alternative.” If that’s not coordinated PR, I don’t know what is.
Honestly, I’m just tired of repeating the same thing over and over — especially when I’m clearly replying to what looks like three different accounts all pushing the same prop firm narrative. I’ve stated my position consistently, yet somehow I’m the one being accused of “promotion”? That’s not discussion, that’s agenda.
That’s projection 101 — accusing others of doing exactly what you’re doing.
And yes — I genuinely agree — this has clearly turned into an orchestrated attempt to discredit one firm while gently steering people toward a conveniently “better” alternative. Let’s not pretend it’s anything else.
You’ve made a long list of accusations, but still haven’t provided a single concrete fact to back them up. No proof of non-payment, no official complaints, no documented issues — just repetition, assumptions, and a lot of noise, all while trying to pin something on someone else. Trying so hard to accuse someone of something — and still bringing nothing to support it. Shame, really.
It is said that brokers compensate individuals for promotion, which may indeed be accurate. Conversely, it is also possible that regulators provide payments to individuals to advocate for regulations.
Yes, you’ve always said that, but unfortunately for you, everyone can now see for themselves that it’s untrue, and that the “brokerage side” you speak of, that owns and runs Axi Select, is a broker called AxiTrader Limited, and that it isn’t FCA-regulated at all.
And (thanks to the link above) people can now see that even Axi Select has admitted that, when pushed to do so, in public.
You’re probably just joking — this information is literally in their press release. They’re not hiding it at all, it’s public and openly available. Just google is. What the question?
All your posts here honestly just look like plain spam.
I think Oanda has a setup like this with their funded account/prop firm. Different regulator based on which company you’re working with.
