[Discussion] Criteria for assigning DC to the white and black list
- Thread starter Genevieve
- Start date
A very complex topic. Most of what is proposed will be very subjective. I think there are no objective factors for being assigned to the white list, except for long work without obvious kitchen joints.
As for the blacklist, there are some eloquent points, for example:
As for the blacklist, there are some eloquent points, for example:
- Points of the regulations on the limitation of time and profitability of transactions.
- Order freeze levels.
- Profit guarantee (for managed accounts).
- Frequent cancellations of profitable trades.
- Obvious kitchen joints.
Here is the first paradox. And indeed...
You see, I'm just trying to add a little meaning to the dialogues in some DC topics.
And then now who shouts louder and turns the phrase steeper, he most often won. But this is a forex forum, not a rap battle yet...
Lynching is dangerous, you can quickly and not very guilty shoot instead of six months to hit in the rights.
Well, not the Middle Ages, and those who consider themselves entitled to judge and burn at the stake, should have a set of at least general rules/rules.
Perhaps the binary classification of black and white itself is incorrect-hence the difficulties in attribution.
Perhaps you need more partitions, for example:
1) DC, for which there is no own information
2) Paying DC with a minimum or no questions asked
3) Paying DC with questions in the past or now
4) DC with questions about individual payments and other issues
5) Scam
Perhaps moving away from the black-and-white division will make it easier for everyone to understand the features of different DC.
Tags can also be useful, for example, a tag like "there is an overdue payment", "there is a disputed payment" can be temporarily assigned to individual DC...
The most disenfranchised part of working with DC is the clients. Therefore, it is necessary to put their interests first of all at the forefront and not the interests of offices, whose regulations allow you to delete transactions, re-open at non-existent prices, and so on.
Everything is very ambiguous. Even in the same cancellation of transactions, there may be very different cases. Compare, for example, a broker has something wrong in some cases and was forced to cancel the client's transaction due to an obvious failure (completely inadequate price). Or the broker (kitchen) repeatedly cancels transactions that are not clearly erroneous, but simply the broker's quotes lagged (due to the lack of software), clients were able to earn money on them and the broker recognized them as non-marketable.
It seems that both there and there are cancellations of transactions, only in one case it is a clear failure, in the second kitchen dealing and unwillingness to pay profit.
It seems that both there and there are cancellations of transactions, only in one case it is a clear failure, in the second kitchen dealing and unwillingness to pay profit.
IMHO there should also be a gray a list of all brokers providing cent account services or trading services in the BO will be located (Alpari, Roboforex, Forex4yu, etc.), because the presence of cent accounts suggests that the broker cooks in them - transactions are not withdrawn anywhere, which means that successful traders are not profitable for the company. I don't say anything about bo at all.
And in white, leave only white and fluffy ones ) with a good license and withdrawal to the interbank market, without cents, BO and other kitchen services.
And in white, leave only white and fluffy ones ) with a good license and withdrawal to the interbank market, without cents, BO and other kitchen services.
Here's a cool idea. You can make a list of warning factors for each broker and there a link to an explanation of the warning factors. For example, a deposit bonus is an alarming factor, and follow the link to explain that the bonus is either a clear sign of inefficiency, since it is impossible to work out a 200% interest bonus for a market company, or it is a divorce. There are two types of divorce. The first is when the bonus needs to be worked out with a volume that is usually unrealistic to perform, or when the bonus does not participate in the drawdown and, in fact, the client is simply raised by the leverage, which is tantamount to cheating, in my opinion.
