Hello Pharaoh! Hello dear traders!
I really do not have access to such technical information about tics for accounts. Do you really think it is a critical question in this topic?
By using 6 tics back as an example "proving" your case, you made it critical. If ALL normal trades are executed at the current tick, that's a big piece of evidence on your side. If 6 (or more) tics happens from time to time or even commonly, then your previous statements about it are irrelevant.
Why would you try to use this as evidence without asking someone with technical knowledge first? Why didn't you asked someone with that knowledge instead of wasting time and asking why the information that you tried to make relevant was relevant to the discussion?
Yes. I didn't ask any documentation. I can not even imagine that MQ representative will go and start searching or creating any documentation for this case
How odd. I can go back through the history of so many software products and see which upgrades fixed which bugs and security holes. You tell us you had emails, but lost them, then say to ignore MetaQuotes, but later to believe your version of an alleged conversation with MetaQuotes on the issue.
If you have a piece of evidence that's real, I would expect you to stick to it and show it's legit. Instead, you twice have presented an idea (MT4 weakness and 6 tics as evidence) and then tried to back away from it. On MT4 weakness, you came back with an alleged phone call and no hard evidence. I'm left wondering how you'll treat the 6 tics argument in your next post - assuming you don't conveniently ignore it again.
I addition to the above, I have several other questions that apparently need to be restated and/or clarified to try to get a straight answer out of you.
1. Is it the official position of IFCMarkets that MT4 's backend had a huge security hole, MetaQuotes fixed it, and then made absolutely no documentation of any sort regarding this issue available to brokers?
2. I would expect that a well written EA would attempt to place the order again. Retrying once a second would be normal behavior for many EAs when a market order isn't executed by the broker. Is it your position that IFCMarkets thinks that EAs should just give up when orders are rejected?
3. Even if the EA did deliberately attempt to close deals on the wrong side of the spread, those orders got rejected MANY times. It looks like they may have only been accepted and executed when the real price offered by the MT4 backend slipped in the client's favor. What this means is that those order that were executed should have executed at the price the client got, even if the orders went in on the correct side of the spread - that is, unless IFC Markets only gives negative slippage to clients. Do you believe that IFCMarkets only gives negative slippage to clients?
4. The statement you keep referring to as evidence mentions Virtual Dealer. Does IFC Markets use the Virtual Dealer Plugin for MT4's backend?