Prop Firm Hub | Page 1037 | 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

  • #20,721
  • Sep 5, 2023 11:50am Sep 5, 2023 11:50am
Quoting OutThere
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...
So in 15 minutes you have completely changed your opinion because I agreed with you right?
  • #20,722
  • Sep 5, 2023 11:52am Sep 5, 2023 11:52am
Quoting Takisd
{quote} So in 15 minutes you have completely changed your opinion because I agreed with you right?
I am weighing all the points of view I can think of and yes, after all I think the regulators will win handedly.
You are kinda like a sounding board. Some sounds penetrate and some bounce off. Doesn't mean you changed my opinion because you agreed with me but I know you are arrogant that way.
  • #20,723
  • Sep 5, 2023 11:54am Sep 5, 2023 11:54am
Quoting OutThere
{quote} I am weighing all the points of view I can think of and yes, after all I think the regulators will win handedly.
So what about the part where they state clearly that 100+ accounts were on stp and funds were being executed externally albeit unsuccessfully. Does this make it a ponzi also?
  • #20,724
  • Sep 5, 2023 12:06pm Sep 5, 2023 12:06pm
Quoting Takisd
{quote} So what about the part where they state clearly that 100+ accounts were on stp and funds were being executed externally albeit unsuccessfully. Does this make it a ponzi also?
The props have done a number of things. I am sure they have tried to use signals produced by a trader's activity in the real market at some point. As per their own admissions, they have been experimenting with ways of making money from data. That is a very vague statement. Data is the signals from few selected traders? Data is from a group of top traders? Or is it data as a whole? It could even be snooping on what EA and exact setups a successful trader uses to make consistent money. They are not going to say see, see, we tried to look like we are actually trading some signals for real at some point and therefore, we are legit..

There are so many ways that these firms can and have and will handle a trader and their actions for the purpose of self enrichment that it will take years to find out which ones have been legal or illegal. Overall, the props have been producing the evidence against themselves for years. Regs are just arriving at a plethora of infractions to sort out first and then analyze and categorize. I'm sure the budget is there in the form of a $300 million profit in what's his name possession.
  • #20,725
  • Sep 5, 2023 12:08pm Sep 5, 2023 12:08pm
Quoting OutThere
{quote} The regulators have done a number of things. I am sure they have tried to use signals produced by a trader's activity in the real market at some point. As per their own admissions, they have been experimenting with ways of making money from data. That is a very vague statement. Data is the signals from few selected traders? Data is from a group of top traders? Or is it data as a whole? It could even be snooping on what EA and exact setups a successful trader uses to make consistent money. There are so many ways that these firms can and have...
They didn't make $300 million in profit.
  • #20,726
  • Sep 5, 2023 12:11pm Sep 5, 2023 12:11pm
Quoting Takisd
{quote} So what about the part where they state clearly that 100+ accounts were on stp and funds were being executed externally albeit unsuccessfully. Does this make it a ponzi also?
Here's the truth on the matter......Some (for whatever reason) wish and hope for MFF to lose.
Even though they provided a trader with 24X the capital vs. their fee, paid out perfectly, had better than market conditions and most importantly, none of YOUR OWN MONEY was at risk (other than the initial 1/24 of what they gave you).....literally a SUCCESSFUL TRADERS dream.
There have always been haters of props (we can only speculate as to the why)......I highly doubt it is due to the concern of their fellow neighbor, but probably more along the lines "IF I can't do it, nobody should be able to" but of course everyone is entitled to their opinion.
  • #20,727
  • Sep 5, 2023 12:13pm Sep 5, 2023 12:13pm
Quoting Takisd
{quote} They didn't make $300 million in profit.
Sorry at the beginning of my paragraph I wrote "The regulators have done a number..". I corrected it to "The props have done..."

So, MFF made $300 million in profit. Didn't they?
  • #20,728
  • Sep 5, 2023 12:15pm Sep 5, 2023 12:15pm
Quoting OutThere
{quote} Sorry at the beginning of my paragraph I wrote "The regulators have done a number..". I corrected it to "The props have done..." So, MFF made $300 million in profit. Didn't they?
No. They had that much revenue "Approximately" and 175m payouts "approximately". nice to accuse someone of something with "approximately" in the text.
  • #20,729
  • Sep 5, 2023 12:20pm Sep 5, 2023 12:20pm
Quoting pipmaster77
{quote} Here's the truth on the matter......Some (for whatever reason) wish and hope for MFF to lose. Even though they provided a trader with 24X the capital vs. their fee, paid out perfectly, had better than market conditions and most importantly, none of YOUR OWN MONEY was at risk (other than the initial 1/24 of what they gave you).....literally a SUCCESSFUL TRADERS dream. There have always been haters of props (we can only speculate as to the why)......I highly doubt it is due to the concern of their fellow neighbor, but probably more along the...

Is this what a regulator looking for?

Even though they provided a trader with 24X the capital vs. their fee, paid out perfectly, had better than market conditions and most importantly, none of YOUR OWN MONEY was at risk (other than the initial 1/24 of what they gave you).....literally a SUCCESSFUL TRADERS dream.

The regulators usually have extensive rules on their books. If they say anything goes as long as a prop provides a trader with 24X the capital, pays out perfectly, has better than market conditions, when none of YOUR OWN MONEY was at risk (other than the initial 1/24 of what they gave you), then MFF has nothing to worry about.
  • #20,730
  • Sep 5, 2023 12:23pm Sep 5, 2023 12:23pm
Quoting Takisd
{quote} No. They had that much revenue "Approximately" and 175m payouts "approximately". nice to accuse someone of something with "approximately" in the text.
Obviously all that has to be investigated still. Maybe 300 mill is what is known if luxury items and bank accounts are added together but there is still the Crypto hidings and retirement funds stashed away to be used after doing a couple years in jail for doing white collar crime.
  • #20,731
  • Sep 5, 2023 12:29pm Sep 5, 2023 12:29pm
Quoting OutThere
{quote} Well Hooray, than why are you claiming it is not Ponzi and everyone is wrong to call it that?
In reality if MFF is a ponzi then all b-bookers are also ponzi because they use losers funds and equity to pay out profits. That would also make a-bookers and LP's ponzi because they also use client funds to pay out profitable traders.

Found this on one channel. They should have known better.

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: photo_2023-09-05_20-18-58.jpg Size: 34 KB
  • #20,732
  • Sep 5, 2023 12:30pm Sep 5, 2023 12:30pm
Quoting OutThere
{quote} Is this what a regulator looking for? Even though they provided a trader with 24X the capital vs. their fee, paid out perfectly, had better than market conditions and most importantly, none of YOUR OWN MONEY was at risk (other than the initial 1/24 of what they gave you).....literally a SUCCESSFUL TRADERS dream. The regulators usually have extensive rules on their books. If they say anything goes as long as a prop provides a trader with 24X the capital, pays out perfectly, has better than market conditions, when none of YOUR OWN MONEY was...
The point is regulation comes in the form of the bullshit disguise of "protecting the consumer".
They are only hurting successful traders who are able to earn much more than the otherwsie would on their own.
The losing traders will continue to lose, however, that money will now be lost where the folks "lobbying" the regulators want them to lose it.
So, in the end, who is this protecting?
Another example, being in the US, how am I protected by having to trade with Oanda or Forex.com, with absoluely no protection of funds, but cannot go with ICMarkets, Tickmill, Pepperstone or any other regulated broker with much better conditions AND protection of funds.
It truly is this simple. No need to overcomplicate it.
The issue here is those that are pro-government and regulation truly think they are being protected. They are not. They are simply being steered in the direction the government wishes to drive them. It really is common sense, just need to open your eyes and look around.
The government preys on the naive.
  • #20,733
  • Sep 5, 2023 12:31pm Sep 5, 2023 12:31pm
Quoting OutThere
{quote} Obviously all that has to be investigated still. Maybe 300 mill is what is known if luxury items and bank accounts are added together but there is still the Crypto hidings and retirement funds stashed away to be used after doing a couple years in jail for doing white collar crime.
I understand you watch a lot of TV, but dude has everything frozen, literally. Whether you agree with anyone or not its ok, but don't like build up this big criminal mastermind case. Whether he has a toyota rav 4 or a bugatti isn't relevant to the story, its just built to make an image just as you are portraying and make sure that maximum pressure and damage is done. If someone has a profit of "approximately" 100 m, should they not have luxury items? Forget the whole stashed away godfather tier fantasy. Focus on the facts that we know, and not making up facts that aren't shown anywhere.

Whether its MFF or TFT or FTMO or anyone in this marketplace, they aren't big masterminds with deceit and thievery in mind I believe of the prop firms people use in this thread, all the owners intentions are to run a somewhat legitimate business and in their mind thats what they are doing. I hate angelo with a passion, but I would say the same about him if this is or does happen to him. Its not like he has gold bars buried in his back yard guarded by 5 pitbulls unless the CFTC says "we found gold bars buried in his backyard guarded by 5 pitbulls" on a legal document.
  • #20,734
  • Sep 5, 2023 12:33pm Sep 5, 2023 12:33pm
Quoting TraderTero
{quote} In reality if MFF is a ponzi then all b-bookers are also ponzi because they use losers funds and equity to pay out profits. That would also make a-bookers and LP's ponzi because they also use client funds to pay out profitable traders. Found this on one channel. They should have known better. {image}
Ultimately any market maker is a ponzi.
  • #20,735
  • Sep 5, 2023 12:34pm Sep 5, 2023 12:34pm
Quoting TraderTero
{quote} In reality if MFF is a ponzi then all b-bookers are also ponzi because they use losers funds and equity to pay out profits. That would also make a-bookers and LP's ponzi because they also use client funds to pay out profitable traders. Found this on one channel. They should have known better. {image}
and I sure hope the owner(s) of such brokerages have not bought any "luxury" items. How dare someone start a business and earn profit....shame on them.
  • #20,736
  • Sep 5, 2023 12:39pm Sep 5, 2023 12:39pm
Quoting TraderTero
{quote} In reality if MFF is a ponzi then all b-bookers are also ponzi because they use losers funds and equity to pay out profits. That would also make a-bookers and LP's ponzi because they also use client funds to pay out profitable traders. Found this on one channel. They should have known better. {image}
That's a perfect argument to be used by a lawyer and will fit in 'whataboutism' category. It will probably be rejected because it would involve opening a case on all b-brokers conducts and then comparing them. I doubt they are going that route during a trial.
  • #20,737
  • Sep 5, 2023 12:44pm Sep 5, 2023 12:44pm
Quoting pipmaster77
{quote} The point is regulation comes in the form of the bullshit disguise of "protecting the consumer". They are only hurting successful traders who are able to earn much more than the otherwsie would on their own. The losing traders will continue to lose, however, that money will now be lost where the folks "lobbying" the regulators want them to lose it. So, in the end, who is this protecting? Another example, being in the US, how am I protected by having to trade with Oanda or Forex.com, with absoluely no protection of funds, but cannot go with...
Just my opinion that your kind of argument is suitable for common folks. You may be able to convince someone who needs a bit of push to fall to one side or another with saying something like 'he bullshit disguise of "protecting the consumer"' or "The government preys on the naive" but that won't fly as a defense in court where MFF has to go.
  • #20,738
  • Sep 5, 2023 12:46pm Sep 5, 2023 12:46pm
I would be very surprised if this plays out in court, but I was shocked they released the allegations pre court. CFTC isn't really keen on settling things in court.
  • #20,739
  • Sep 5, 2023 12:47pm Sep 5, 2023 12:47pm
Quoting OutThere
{quote} That's a perfect argument to be used by a lawyer and will fit in 'whataboutism' category. It will probably be rejected because it would involve opening a case on all b-brokers conducts and then comparing them. I doubt they are going that route during a trial.
Of course they will not go that route. You really don't get it.
#1. More than likely, the brokers (losing tons of money due to props) have been lobbying for this
#2. Those are brokers they supposedly "regulate" and let get away with far worse than MFF on a daily basis. Certainly wouldn't be a good look.
  • #20,740
  • Sep 5, 2023 12:49pm Sep 5, 2023 12:49pm
Quoting OutThere
{quote} That's a perfect argument to be used by a lawyer and will fit in 'whataboutism' category. It will probably be rejected because it would involve opening a case on all b-brokers conducts and then comparing them. I doubt they are going that route during a trial.
Right, the ponzi argument is so weak and just placed there to make MFF look more bad. This is the key part in the suite:
Count IV: Acting as an Unregistered RFED Associated Person In Violation
of Section 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(aa), 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(aa), and
Regulation 5.3(a)(6)(ii), 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(6)(ii) (2022)
80 traders viewing now