Your first pick was regulated in Mauritius, which at one point was a haven for dirty brokers who wanted some type of regulation to put on their site but still operate without much restriction so they can do their dirty things. (The current haven has shifted to cypress since FSC started pulling licenses of people who were giving them a bad name. That is to read, they didn’t slap them with fines, they didn’t help get client’s money back, they just kicked out the business that gave them a black eye to the public.)
I went to read the legal regulations FSC had in place a few years back when I was considering a broker in Mauritius, most of their legal acts were within 100 pages long but padded out with fluff wording (non-legal speak, not specific, and long winded plain English wording) and in a font size that makes a 20 page document become 100. It was also focused on what the financial commission there can do and how they have the legal authority to do so, not how a company should operate and what’s proper business practices… I encourage you to do a little research into this yourself if you’d like to see what I mean.
So yeah, I’m sure your first pick is a nice company and all, but since this thread is about ‘trust’… I just can’t agree with you since the client has very little leverage over the company with their regulator should something go wrong.