Unfortunately, Mr. Kovacs has not replied to our request for his permission to publish the FDR decision (email requests and here in forum) on the matter which he alleged to be an example of improper conduct by FXOpen. By doing this he effectively deprives the community of this forum, which he apparently saw as an appropriate venue for making his allegations public, of a direct access to a decision on the matter taken by an independent and competent dispute resolution authority. This raises questions as to whether the purpose of discussion in this forum, as initiated by Mr. Kovacs, was to provide the trading community with truthful information regarding the events in question, or simply to funnel his emotional reaction to how FXOpen handled erroneous trades on his account into a public campaign detrimental to the image and reputation of our company, without any regard to the actual objective nature of the events in question. We believe that any unbiased observer will find this lack of response from the complainant to be a substantial proof of the fact that references to the decision previously made by FXOpen in this thread are in line with the content of the actual decision.
Our understanding was that this forum strives to be a venue for proper and objective evaluation of complaints members of trading community may have with respect to certain actions taken by service providers, rather than a mere tribune for emotional and unfounded badmouthing campaigns which certain individuals may resort to in case their complaint against a service provider does not withstand an objective evaluation. We also were under an impression that administration of this forum is unbiased in its view on the events discussed, and will not ignore actual facts behind the matter in question in order to avoid acknowledging the inevitable conclusions these facts lead to and, if necessary, revising opinions voiced and/or supported by its members. Unfortunately, we are forced to conclude that in this particular case we have been observing actions inconsistent with this concept.
Once again, we believe, that GUILTY mark should be removed by Administration.
Kind Regards,
Denis Peganov
Our understanding was that this forum strives to be a venue for proper and objective evaluation of complaints members of trading community may have with respect to certain actions taken by service providers, rather than a mere tribune for emotional and unfounded badmouthing campaigns which certain individuals may resort to in case their complaint against a service provider does not withstand an objective evaluation. We also were under an impression that administration of this forum is unbiased in its view on the events discussed, and will not ignore actual facts behind the matter in question in order to avoid acknowledging the inevitable conclusions these facts lead to and, if necessary, revising opinions voiced and/or supported by its members. Unfortunately, we are forced to conclude that in this particular case we have been observing actions inconsistent with this concept.
Once again, we believe, that GUILTY mark should be removed by Administration.
Kind Regards,
Denis Peganov