Problem Fxopen scam - see my proofs

[Dalibor Filipovik]

Not good at all

definitively they act like Market makers, if they are real ECN they need to match the prices on the market, if the price is not available the you get you order canceled or slipped. they were taking the orders and their counterpart, instead to route the client on the liquidity provider, and for sure they didn't expect him to be successful and make that much money fast, most of the time when they see which clients are profitable they route them to the market directly matching them with the price

I'm lucky that i read this i was planing to open 4000 dollar account in September i save that money for 7 months

 

[precap2]

I just became aware of this thread today while I was trying to get some matter sorted about FxOpen. I have written their support department severally without response and they still couldn't get the matter sorted. I also wrote their finance department but nothing. I have shut down trading with them and whatever is left after previous withdrawal I leave for them so they can have something to feed with when this house of cards comes tumbling.

I spent time reading the entire thread and came to one conclusion, it's more like a question: Why so much unwisdom?

After reading all the responses from FxOpen Reps, one thing kept nagging me "If I employed such people in my company, I would have terminated their appointment without further thought". But on a second swirl I reasoned that it might also be company's policy to rip people off, so they must employ "apparent" ninny-heads to do the dirty laundry. FxOpen showed deep lack of knowledge of what makes businesses grow.

When I was starting out with them I asked who their liquidity providers were and they say that at the head of it was Dukascopy (probably there was no NDA then), but I also trade with Dukascopy and haven't recorded this sort of BS. Another ECN I use publicly displayed their liquidity providers as INTEGRAL and CURRENEX. Why so much secrecy on the part of FxOpen?

My verdict is simple: FxOpen is simply hiding behind a ghost Liquidity Provider to avoid accepting responsibility for stealing someone's money. . . . FxOpen has no external Liquidity Provider. . . . FxOpen is that Liquidity Provider.

PC2

P.S: If there was any LP, FxOpen would have fought that LP to a standstill rather than lose teeming customers. ALL businesses grow on customers/clientele.

 

[odi]

how did u do this tell us

 

[FXCobra]

I just became aware of this thread today while I was trying to get some matter sorted about FxOpen. I have written their support department severally without response and they still couldn't get the matter sorted. I also wrote their finance department but nothing. I have shut down trading with them and whatever is left after previous withdrawal I leave for them so they can have something to feed with when this house of cards comes tumbling.

I spent time reading the entire thread and came to one conclusion, it's more like a question: Why so much unwisdom?

After reading all the responses from FxOpen Reps, one thing kept nagging me "If I employed such people in my company, I would have terminated their appointment without further thought". But on a second swirl I reasoned that it might also be company's policy to rip people off, so they must employ "apparent" ninny-heads to do the dirty laundry. FxOpen showed deep lack of knowledge of what makes businesses grow.

When I was starting out with them I asked who their liquidity providers were and they say that at the head of it was Dukascopy (probably there was no NDA then), but I also trade with Dukascopy and haven't recorded this sort of BS. Another ECN I use publicly displayed their liquidity providers as INTEGRAL and CURRENEX. Why so much secrecy on the part of FxOpen?

My verdict is simple: FxOpen is simply hiding behind a ghost Liquidity Provider to avoid accepting responsibility for stealing someone's money. . . . FxOpen has no external Liquidity Provider. . . . FxOpen is that Liquidity Provider.

PC2

P.S: If there was any LP, FxOpen would have fought that LP to a standstill rather than lose teeming customers. ALL businesses grow on customers/clientele.

FXOpen had already been proved a SCAM Broker. Everyone must continue spreading this fact for others not to get cheated by this Scam Broker.

However, different cases against this broker in FPA folders will add help to continue fighting FxOpen Scam to stop traders from opening new accounts.

 

[rohitpatel505]

ECN with fxopen really bad, they show different ticks on different clients accounts as well ecn demo was far away of this showing some thing like being in Himalayas. Fxopen Scam!

 

[BigT1]

Hello Rohitpatel505.
If you wish our assistance you need to open your own, new thread; and provide some specific facts and issues that affected you; not just come here to hurl a Molatov cocktail no matter how well justified.
.
Anthony Ingrassia, CTA
NFA ID#: 0278164

 

[FXOpen NZ]

Dear Forumers,
Regarding this case (Kovacs Norbert vs fxopen.com #2012-056) we would like to inform you that Mr.Kovacs made a respective complaint to the New Zealand Financial Dispute Resolution (Financial Dispute Resolution) – an independent New Zealand dispute resolution scheme for consumers and financial service providers to use when they are unable to resolve a dispute. FXOpen NZ Limited is a scheme member since December 2011 (http://www.fdr.org.nz/member_search/scheme_member/197240).

In March 2013 FDR made its final decision on Mr.Kovacs’ complaint. According to the FDR Final Decision:
-it had not been established that FXOpen had not acted in accordance with the contractual provisions set out in the Customer Agreement and Terms of Business;
-FXOpen has adequately explained how the error of the prices occurred and what steps were taken by FXOpen to rectify the situation in compliance with the agreed terms between the parties.
Thus, FXOpen has adequately justified its actions in accordance with Customer Agreement and Terms of Business closed with Mr.Kovacs.
For those reasons Mr.Kovacs’ claim has not been proven and Mr.Kovacs’ complaint to FDR was dismissed.


Unfortunately, we may not publish FDR decision without Mr.Kovacs prior consent. In case Mr.Kovacs gives the consent, we’ll provide you with additional information.

Just for you interest you could find the similar case at the official FDR website Online foreign exchange trading | Financial Dispute Resolution

Regards

 

[Pharaoh]

If you can't publish the finding without the consent of Kovacs Norbert, how can we know that the points you made adequately reflect what the NZFDS really said?

Have you asked Kovacs for permission to publish the entire finding?

 

[Netgold777]

Lol. Now I gonna chuck my 6 eggs into this lil 'omellette'. Around the time all this was going on, may of last year I believe, I was trading demo accounts with fxopen ecn. Brave of me I know I was regularly turning $5000 accounts into £30K to around $50k accounts. At around this time i beieve there must have been some sort of 'glitch' in fxopens mt4 platform. I would notice that the platform would suddenly hang and a new candle would appear considerably higher than the last one say 50pips plus but if I kept banging in order after order I would be getting them at the original candle price. Doing this manually I could sometimes get around 10 orders on, if I had been a bit more savvy and used an EA to place automatic orders, I am sure I could have got a lot more on. As it was the result would still be a quick approx several thousand dollars profit. Not bad on a $5k starting balance. At the time I wondered if this glitch was also present in fxopen's live accounts???? I nearly opened one to test it)
See the similarity?
However, is the provider/broker not liable for what their platform displays??? In the UK if you accidently advertise something publicly at a certain price, you are legally obliged to honour that price. Personally I think that it was a problem with fxopen's software and not a LP as stated. From what I have read in this and other threads, it appears the live data is different to the demo account data, yet the problem was also present on the demo accounts and had been for some time, a couple of months at least. Surely someone else must have noticed this???

 

[FXOpen NZ]

If you can't publish the finding without the consent of Kovacs Norbert, how can we know that the points you made adequately reflect what the NZFDS really said?

Have you asked Kovacs for permission to publish the entire finding?

We confirm that our previous post is to be regarded as an invitation to Mr. Kovacs to approve publication by our company of FDR decision on this forum, and we would like to once again repeat this invitation. As a party to the dispute Mr. Kovacs, as the complainant, has received the text of the final decision and, respectively, is able to compare the summary provided by FXOpen to the actual contents of the decision. If the complainant believes that FXOpen has provided any false information in its previous summary, his approval of publication of the actual text of the decision will help alleviate any misunderstanding in this regard.
In the meantime, as FDR do publish case studies based on their decisions (without disclosing specific details of the parties) anyone willing to look into the matter in detail before drawing conclusions can browse through these publications and see that no case studies that would potentially contradict the summary previously provided by FXOpen in this forum have been published by FDR. The case studies page can be found via the following link
Case Studies | Financial Dispute Resolution