Problem IFC Markets become a scam

[IFC Markets]

This is a step in the right direction, but I am still far from convinced.

1. MANY orders were rejected. If this magic EA could force wrong prices, why were all of those rejected?

I don't know but pay attention that his robot sent requests almost every second, and not all but many of them were accepted.

Personally, I have a suspicion. If Sebytim's EA or any other EA really was capable of pushing in orders on the "wrong" side of the spread (whether this is even possible is still up for discussion), it was just an attempt to catch positive slippage.

If it was an attempt to catch positive slippage why all the deals (which were performed) were performed exactly on the "wrong" side of the spread?

I am answering here : I AM NOT!!

The answer is wrong. See the screenshot in the post 11.

 

[Pharaoh]

Regarding item 1, if an open or close order is rejected, 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 think that EAs should give up when orders are rejected?

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.


I see you skipped critical questions. This sort of evasiveness will only further erode any confidence people have in IFC Markets.

2. 6 tics back could be equal to, better than, or worse than the current tic's price. Does every order processed on your server execute at the exact current tic? In other words, do ANY market orders to open or close an order ever execute at one or more tics back?

Shall I assume that the answer is that many "normal" market orders are opened and closed at prices anywhere from 1-10 tics (maybe more?) back? If so, then your argument about an order executing at a price 6 tics back carries no weight.

3. I'm a little surprised that you didn't ask the MetaQuotes person for some documentation of the issue - not of Sebytim's account specifically, but the documentation of the software patch or upgrade that was supposed to fix this problem for all MT4 brokers. I have a feeling FXDD would pay for you to send them a copy by express mail since they didn't exactly do a good job convincing the NFA that there ever really was a vulnerability like this.

A synopsis of an alleged phone call isn't exactly convincing evidence. Your claim of an EA with magical powers is the sort of extraordinary claim that needs some sort of documentation.

 

[IFC Markets]

Hello Pharaoh! Hello dear traders!

I see you skipped critical questions. This sort of evasiveness will only further erode any confidence people have in IFC Markets.

2. 6 tics back could be equal to, better than, or worse than the current tic's price. Does every order processed on your server execute at the exact current tic? In other words, do ANY market orders to open or close an order ever execute at one or more tics back?

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?

3. I'm a little surprised that you didn't ask the MetaQuotes person for some documentation of the issue - not of Sebytim's account specifically, but the documentation of the software patch or upgrade that was supposed to fix this problem for all MT4 brokers. I have a feeling FXDD would pay for you to send them a copy by express mail since they didn't exactly do a good job convincing the NFA that there ever really was a vulnerability like this.
A synopsis of an alleged phone call isn't exactly convincing evidence. Your claim of an EA with magical powers is the sort of extraordinary claim that needs some sort of documentation.

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

 

[Prem Kumar Ramamurthi]

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?



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

Woooooooooowie..... what a reply frm the rep with carelessness....

Come on.... when things are put infront of you, you should be in a position to handle it not skip it

 

[Pharaoh]

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?

 

[xredburn]

Some brokers look very good until you beat them with your trading. If you were a loser of 5000$, they would never reverse your trading and refund your account because your EA lost money. The problem was that you won too much. Bad for their business. Use always the ECN type broker because you get better spreads, fastest execution time and no conflicts with the broker.

 

[IFC Markets]

Some brokers look very good until you beat them with your trading. If you were a loser of 5000$, they would never reverse your trading and refund your account because your EA lost money. The problem was that you won too much. Bad for their business. Use always the ECN type broker because you get better spreads, fastest execution time and no conflicts with the broker.

It is not much believe me I saw traders who made 250.000 USD from 500 USD in 3-4 months. Who wants to see his trading history - write me a private message. He withdrawed every week about 3-5 thousands.

 

[IFC Markets]

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?

MT4 's settings had a little hole which wasn't noticed at first but fixed quickly afterwards with the help of MQ.

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?

We are discussing the same thing many times. See the screenshot in post 11 and now see how normal expert works: Dear traders pay attention on prices at which deals are opened! I mention again for newbies: Buy position must be opened at Ask price, Sell position - at Bid price. In screenshots 1st price is Bid, the second is Ask.

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.

I'm answering once more. Yes, rejected MANY times because EA requested the price much different from real price. Also MANY times the server performed his requests. In attached above picture you can see that there can be (1 tic for example) some difference between current price and execution price and pay attention that in the given example the execution price is 1 tic better than current price.

Do you believe that IFCMarkets only gives negative slippage to clients?

See the previous answer about positive slippage. Sometimes (very seldom) it can be negative, I admit it. Sometimes it can be positive. We haven't ever got complaints about slippage.

4. The statement you keep referring to as evidence mentions Virtual Dealer. Does IFC Markets use the Virtual Dealer Plugin for MT4's backend?

We used it to process hundreds of thousands deals a day. Do you believe it could be made by hand?

 

[Pharaoh]

MT4 's settings had a little hole which wasn't noticed at first but fixed quickly afterwards with the help of MQ.

And IFC wants everyone to believe that MetaQuotes never bothered to document the existence of a little hole or to send a notice out to the thousands of brokers that use their products to hurry and install the fix for it even though this could result in massive disputes?

We are discussing the same thing many times. See the screenshot in post 11 and now see how normal expert works: View attachment 8467 Dear traders pay attention on prices at which deals are opened! I mention again for newbies: Buy position must be opened at Ask price, Sell position - at Bid price. In screenshots 1st price is Bid, the second is Ask.

Thank you for providing this picture. It completely clears Sebytim of one of your accusations. There are 2 "previous price 4" errors. You made a big deal out of Sebytim having a "previous price 6" error on his and accused him of trying to force IFC to accept a price 6 tics back. The image you provided for Sebytim shows one other "previous price 4 error". Based on this limited sample of data, "previous price" errors in the 4-6 tics range appear to be common in your system, so should not be taken as evidence of any attempt to cheat.

And fixing pricing issues is what slippage, requotes and offquotes messages are for. Has it occurred to you that an EA coder could ACCIDENTALLY have switched bid and ask when coding an EA? If so, there could be hundreds of EAs that do this, and all the brokers have to do is not honor the orders if the price is outside the boundaries of acceptable slippage. If its inside the boundaries, the order should close at the correct price.

See the previous answer about positive slippage. Sometimes (very seldom) it can be negative, I admit it. Sometimes it can be positive. We haven't ever got complaints about slippage.

You claim to process hundreds of thousands of deals per day and say you haven't ever gotten any complaints about slippage? Wow. Considering I've seen new traders freak out over getting 1 pip of slippage, I find that claim amazing.

We used it to process hundreds of thousands deals a day. Do you believe it could be made by hand?

If trades were processed manually, then you would be using a manual dealing desk. What I was asking about, and what you have just clearly admitted to, is that IFC Markets is using a special MT4 backend plugin called the Virtual Dealing Desk plugin. Do I need to provide links showing cases where regulators have caught a broker using this to arrange differential slippage, selective requotes, etc.?



Let's see where we stand:
6 tics back as evidence - no. 4-6 tics back appears to be perfectly normal based on log files posted by IFC Markets representative.
Rejections of incorrect price orders - present in both Sebytim's log and a normal log. Shows that MT4 backend seems very capable of handling an issue like Sebytim's EA is accused of creating.
Proof from MetaQuotes that any EA sending wrong prices (deliberately or accidentally) was ever capable of causing false prices to be accepted by the MT4 backend server - for something so important, this appears to be mysteriously missing.
VDP - IFC Markets representative publicly admits that the company has the Virtual Dealer Plugin installed.

 

[FPA23]

Every 'proselytism' is senseless!

IFC MARKETS is using the Virtual Dealer Plugin to cheat customers.
There is nothing more to be said!

They are and will be a BIG BIG SCAM!!!

GOOGLE: Now it is already on 2nd place!