Prop Firm Hub | Page 1036 | Crypto Craft

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Anyone trading with a Prop firm 31 replies

So I accepted a Prop Trading job in South Beach Miami 44 replies

prop firm new model - my trading journey 871 replies

Attachments: Prop Firm Hub
Exit Attachments

Prop Firm Hub

  • #20,701
  • Sep 5, 2023 10:27am Sep 5, 2023 10:27am
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-Yes, but reality system assumes guilty until proven innocent.
I didn't say you were wrong.
  • #20,702
  • Sep 5, 2023 10:28am Sep 5, 2023 10:28am
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-Suits has been finished for some time now. Haven't you watched through it yet?
Don't have much Netlix time, Think I'm season 4 or5. No spoilers please.
  • #20,703
  • Sep 5, 2023 10:32am Sep 5, 2023 10:32am
Quoting noox
I didn't say you were wrong.
-No worries.
  • #20,704
  • Sep 5, 2023 10:34am Sep 5, 2023 10:34am
Quoting pipmaster77
Don't have much Netlix time, Think I'm season 4 or5. No spoilers please.
-I probably couldn't spoil anything even if I wanted to. These days, I can re-watch a movie like it is the first time. Pros and cons, I guess.
  • #20,705
  • Sep 5, 2023 10:52am Sep 5, 2023 10:52am
Any here take the risk of signing up for new challenges with US props since Friday?
  • #20,706
  • Sep 5, 2023 10:53am Sep 5, 2023 10:53am
Quoting CableJ
Any here take the risk of signing up for new challenges with US props since Friday?
with US props?
Nope, not me.
  • #20,707
  • Sep 5, 2023 10:55am Sep 5, 2023 10:55am
Can't believe I sat through the 5ers ceo interview. Yikes.
  • #20,708
  • Sep 5, 2023 10:56am Sep 5, 2023 10:56am
What props are doing is not Ponzi because one reason. The burden of making or losing money is transferred to the trader who is making all the decisions. The trader is directing the funds as agreed from the beginning. In most Ponzi schemes, there is an investor and a person and company that collects funds and promises returns that may or may not materialize and the investors are basically silent and don't really know what is going on other than fake statements presented to them.

When everything is done according to rules, basically the regulators require that every trade/decision to be put to the investor and basically get their permission to execute it. That is what my regulator said. Complete transparency....and that is pretty much like the funds are being directed by the investor and the trader (licensed advisor) is just a middleman aware of the moves in the market that may benefit the investor. His role is to tip off the investor to get their go ahead nod.

I haven't read the charges against MFF word by word but I doubt the word Ponzi is used in the text. Regulators more than anyone love using that word and if they thought MFF's actions would fit with the description of Ponzi, they would have used it in every paragraph. The only way it could indirectly be Ponzi is that the prop interfered in the market conditions and as a result the trader wasn't able to make the right decision but even with that, I think there are other words like 'interference' that can be used instead of Ponzi.
  • #20,709
  • Sep 5, 2023 10:56am Sep 5, 2023 10:56am
Quoting OutThere
What props are doing is not Ponzi because one reason. The burden of making or losing money is transferred to the trader. The trader is directing the funds as agreed from the beginning. In most Ponzi schemes, there is an investor and a person and company that collects funds and promises returns that may or may not materialize and the investors are basically silent and don't really know what is going on other than fake statements presented to them. When everything is done according to rules, basically the regulators require that every trade/decision...
The word ponzi is used in the text.
  • #20,710
  • Sep 5, 2023 11:04am Sep 5, 2023 11:04am
Quoting Takisd
{quote} The word ponzi is used in the text.
Well Hooray, than why are you claiming it is not Ponzi and everyone is wrong to call it that?
  • #20,711
  • Sep 5, 2023 11:07am Sep 5, 2023 11:07am
Quoting OutThere
What props are doing is not Ponzi because one reason. The burden of making or losing money is transferred to the trader who is making all the decisions.
Here is your quote.

The argument is that it is not a ponzi you were on the right path, they are claiming it is a ponzi. There has been no trial, no conclusion, just an allegation.
If the CFTC says it is something, then it is up to MFF to prove it is not or to take the penalty.

If MFF is a ponzi, every prop firm is a ponzi regardless of jurisdiction.

What it certainly isn't is a statement of guilt because thats not how the US legal system works.

Just realized my statement suggests guilty until proven innocent, but i guess in the court of public opinion thats how things roll.
  • #20,712
  • Sep 5, 2023 11:16am Sep 5, 2023 11:16am
Quoting Takisd
{quote} Here is your quote. The argument is that it is not a ponzi you were on the right path, they are claiming it is a ponzi. There has been no trial, no conclusion, just an allegation. If the CFTC says it is something, then it is up to MFF to prove it is not or to take the penalty. If MFF is a ponzi, every prop firm is a ponzi regardless of jurisdiction. What it certainly isn't is a statement of guilt because thats not how the US legal system works.
The regulators have seen many many Ponzi schemes. They hardly ever back down from their initial findings. I have read Cease and Desist statements that accuse of Ponzi and later the trials and the verdict pretty much prove that they were right to begin with. I have never seen anyone strongly accused of engaging in Ponzi to start and then the the regulator backing off. I haven't obviously read all cases to know if this has occurred but it would really stick out like a sore thumb among Punzi cases if at the end the Ponzi claim is withdrawn.

And yes, there are many props similar to MFF and they are producing bricks at every bathroom stop.
I think if they nail MFF to the wall and set a precedence, the rest will be easily gathered in with Bo Peep's cane.
  • #20,713
  • Sep 5, 2023 11:20am Sep 5, 2023 11:20am
Quoting CableJ
Any here take the risk of signing up for new challenges with US props since Friday?
Was tempted to get one from myfundedfx but wanna wait til the hearing on 11th Sep with MFF...Hey Matt, if you are reading this, can you please consider moving everything to Dubai or sth? lol I mean if Blue Guardian can do that, it shouldn't be that difficult...

With everything that's going on with MFF, I gotta say...I like MFF...despite all those "accusations" on that report...It's one of the least shady prop firms in the market...delivering big payout on time, slippage in a range that's acceptable to me, being around long enough unlike those new prop firms. The only stupid thing they did is prob setting up their HQ in Canada.

Really hope the more "reputable" firms would move away from Canada and US...
memento mori
  • #20,714
  • Sep 5, 2023 11:23am Sep 5, 2023 11:23am
Quoting OutThere
{quote} The regulators have seen many many Ponzi schemes. They hardly ever back down from their initial findings. I have read Cease and Desist statements that accuse of Ponzi and later the trials and the verdict pretty much prove that they were right to begin with. I have never seen anyone so strongly accused of engaging in Ponzi to start and then the the regulator backing off. I haven't obviously read all cases to know if this has occurred but it would really stick out like a sore thumb among Punzi cases if at the end the Ponzi claim is withdrawn....
The Ponzi element in the allegations are not the main elements, its more just a statement in a story. Most of the other allegations are likely easy to disprove. But the question is if the actual securities laws, not the character assassination elements, allegations are real. There is the story being told by the CFTC which looks like a clear attempt to destroy someones character talking about their wealth and luxury lifestyle, but the more likely elements that are to stand are the securities laws lines of which i have no knowledge on worth contributing and leave open to the possibility of being character. The rest of the allegations that are more for public consumption so that everyone goes GASP HOW COULD THEY, most of them are nothing unordinary in the otc marketplace. You have to separate the two i think. I can only comment on the allegations and not the securites codes that may have been broken, the allegations of groups and stp and commission and drawdown rules built to make people lose, and built to make more people lose on stp, any common sense individual can see that they contradict themselves. But it could be as simple as they broke a securities issuance code and need to pay a fine.

The thing that really stands out to me, and the reason why I think this, is because the regulator is suggesting that $3 per lot is exorbitant and that the drawdown rules are there to make people lose. These two things remind me of prop firm twitter allegations based on losing traders who do not know how the market functions.

The rest, who knows, it will be very interesting. But the word ponzi as you mentioned, is also a bit weird because of the reason you mentioned.
  • #20,715
  • Sep 5, 2023 11:25am Sep 5, 2023 11:25am
Quoting Takisd
Can't believe I sat through the 5ers ceo interview. Yikes.
It really does make you question all the CEOs @ the top of these firms.
  • #20,716
  • Sep 5, 2023 11:36am Sep 5, 2023 11:36am
@Takisd

What factor do you think these 2 may play in the case...

1. Dishonest messaging to customers on discord + marketing about the true nature of their business.
2. US citizens trading STP banned CFDs with an offshore non US registered dealer as counterparty
  • #20,717
  • Sep 5, 2023 11:36am Sep 5, 2023 11:36am
Quoting Takisd
{quote} The Ponzi element in the allegations are not the main elements, its more just a statement in a story. Most of the other allegations are likely easy to disprove. But the question is if the actual securities laws, not the character assassination elements, allegations are real. There is the story being told by the CFTC which looks like a clear attempt to destroy someones character talking about their wealth and luxury lifestyle, but the more likely elements that are to stand are the securities laws lines of which i have no knowledge on worth...

I'm quite tempted to attempt a chargeback through my bank (I'm in the UK) to get a refund on my account, I've seen people on reddit have been successful doing so. My only trepidation is if there's any chance that MFF can get through the other side of this and continue some semblance of the same operation. The way CFTC have gone for them character wise makes me think it's unlikely though
  • #20,718
  • Sep 5, 2023 11:42am Sep 5, 2023 11:42am
Quoting CableJ
@Takisd What factor do you think these 2 may play in the case... 1. Dishonest messaging to customers on discord as well ask marketing about the true nature of their business. 2. US citizens trading STP US banned CFDs with an offshore non US registered dealer.
1) You would have to determine what was dishonest and what is without context. I see contextual issues with the story.
2) I have no idea, but I understand that they did not take deposits, hold funds as custodian, or have investors.

For 2 I just say what I know but I do not know the laws around that. They aren't a dealer because they are dealing their own funds. They do not promise returns, they do not guarantee anything. They have clearly stated publicly when and why slippage exists, they say how its better to lower order sizes to lower slippage, they say to avoid news (and are probably the biggest advocates of people not trading news spikes).
Marketing lies? Probably, but to what extent? And is it to an extent where people thought they were investing in something that wasn't written on their website instead of not understanding they are a contracted trader on company funds? What is the deceit exactly? These are the questions that need to be answered.

I was/am a big advocate for MFF and so far I have not been told anything that I didn't already know and understand and see discussed multiple times here so everyone was at least somewhat aware. Even the trolls were in here spitting semi-facts but without the "So long as they pay" positive light.
Did anyone truly believe that people are making money on an a-book? Even MFF have said that A-book is a losing strategy. Its been spoken about here as well.
  • #20,719
  • Sep 5, 2023 11:45am Sep 5, 2023 11:45am
Quoting Dao-trades
{quote} I'm quite tempted to attempt a chargeback through my bank (I'm in the UK) to get a refund on my account, I've seen people on reddit have been successful doing so. My only trepidation is if there's any chance that MFF can get through the other side of this and continue some semblance of the same operation. The way CFTC have gone for them character wise makes me think it's unlikely though
If you charge back, and they win the case. Its likely you will be recharged without option of chargeback again. If they lose, its likely you will get the money back anyway so long as your account is an existing account. I doubt they are going to retroactively payback failed accounts. Same way as they probably won't go and take money from people who were paid profits.
  • #20,720
  • Sep 5, 2023 11:49am Sep 5, 2023 11:49am
The fact that there was no real market but real money was sent and lost and paid out is obviously makes the whole thing very much a Ponzi. The traders really didn't know for sure where their trades were going. The props collectively lied about orders going to the market in order to keep the game going. The game was to collect sign up fees and distribute money from that pool to the winners. It is 100% Ponzi because of that cloak that the props weaved to hide behind. Criminals always do that. Look at the phishing emails. You have won X amount and if you send $, we will send you your winnings. It's all cloaking.
63 traders viewing now