This page describes what actually happens before an analysis is published. It is written in enough detail that a reader can repeat the work, which is the only meaningful test of a method.
Sources we accept
In descending order of weight:
- Public registers maintained by financial supervisors, searched directly rather than through an aggregator.
- Warning lists and enforcement notices published by those same supervisors.
- Official company filings, where a corporate name is available to search.
- Terms, fee schedules and policy documents published by the operator itself, cited with the date we read them.
- Reporting by established news organisations, named in the text.
Affiliate blogs, comment threads, social media posts and testimonial pages are not sources. They are frequently the origin of the figures that circulate about these brands, which is precisely why we exclude them.
The six steps
One: separate the claims. We read the promotional material and divide its sentences into those that could be shown to be false and those that could not. Only the first group is worth analysis.
Two: list the required inputs. A trading claim needs capital, period, leverage, transaction cost, financing and exit charges. A yield claim needs a payer, a source, a risk, a notice period, a suspension clause and an insolvency position. We record which of these are published and which are not.
Three: rebuild the arithmetic. Where inputs exist, we calculate. Where they do not, we run the calculation across a range of assumptions and label the assumptions as ours, every time, in the text itself. We never present a hypothetical figure as a measurement.
Four: read the terms. We look for the clauses that change the sums: bonus turnover conditions, fee amendment rights, margin closure policies, dormancy charges, lock-ups and dispute jurisdiction. If no terms document is reachable without depositing, we report that as a finding rather than a gap.
Five: map the exit. Minimum withdrawal, route, documents demanded and when, written processing window, and the charge. This section exists because a balance that cannot be withdrawn is not money.
Six: search the records. Brand name, spelling variants, and any corporate name the material provides, run through the registers linked at the foot of every analysis. We publish the result whether or not anything was found.
How a verdict is set
The status field takes one of four values and never a number. The default is unverified, and most analyses on this site end there because most of these brands publish nothing that could move them.
A stronger status requires stronger evidence. High risk and avoid are used only where we can cite a published supervisory notice or an enforcement document naming the platform, and the citation appears in the points list on the page. No verdict is ever derived from the tone of the marketing, and no verdict changes because of a commercial relationship. The absence of a register entry is reported as an absence, not converted into an accusation.
Where our knowledge stops
We do not open accounts, and we do not deposit money to test platforms. That means we cannot report on execution quality, slippage or the behaviour of a support team, and we do not pretend otherwise.
Every analysis therefore carries an unverified list. It is written before the verdict and it is deliberately long. Anything on that list which an operator answers publicly will be rechecked, and the page will be updated with a new verification date.