Provider dossier · English
How We Assess a Trading Provider: The Evidence a Review Must Carry
Before a provider earns a verdict on this site, its review has to answer a fixed set of verifiable questions. This is the checklist, and why no score is published until the evidence exists.
Evidence ledger
- Primary sources cited
- None recorded in the migrated text
- Last verification
- Not yet recorded — migrated record awaiting review
- Commercial relationship
- None detected in the migrated text.
- Score or ranking
- Withheld — no scored verdict is published without evidence.
A provider review on this site is a record of what can be verified, not an opinion dressed as a rating. Until the record below is complete, the verification state stays "unreviewed" and no score is shown.
The fixed questions every provider review answers
- Registered entity. What is the exact legal name and company number behind the brand, and where is it incorporated?
- Regulatory status. Which authority is claimed, what does that regulator's own register return, and does the licensed entity match the trading name?
- Client money. Are deposits held in segregated accounts, and is there an investor-compensation scheme in the jurisdiction?
- Costs. What are the disclosed spreads, commissions, swap and inactivity fees, in the provider's own words?
- Withdrawals. What are the stated terms, and what patterns appear in independent complaints?
Why the score waits
A number is easy to publish and hard to defend. We withhold any verdict until each answer above is sourced and dated, because a review that leads with a score and buries the evidence is marketing. When the evidence is logged and a verification date is set, the state moves off "unreviewed" and the record earns its conclusion.
This is a methodology explainer for information and education only and is not financial, investment, or trading advice.