WikiFX

Rispondi

Having spent years trading both major forex pairs and indices, I pay particular attention to the full spectrum of trading costs, as even small differences can affect long-term profitability. When considering Proton Markets for trading indices like the US100, there are several red flags that immediately temper my interest and trust. First, cost transparency is a real concern here. The broker’s published spreads for various account types, including those that hypothetically might allow US100 trading, range from a minimum of 0.9 to upwards of 1.5 pips. In my experience, such spreads for indices are neither the tightest nor the worst, but the bigger issue is the lack of clear and specific detail for the US100 itself—no commission structure, swap rates, or detailed product list is openly listed. This lack of information makes it difficult for me to calculate my expected trading costs ahead of time, which is an unacceptable risk for my strategy. Another major red flag: Proton Markets has no verifiable regulatory status and carries what WikiFX describes as “high potential risk” and a “suspicious regulatory license.” For me, regulatory oversight isn’t just a box-ticking exercise—it helps ensure fair pricing and transparency in published trading costs. Without it, there’s nothing stopping a broker from suddenly increasing spreads, adding hidden fees, or otherwise impairing my bottom line. In summary, because Proton Markets lacks clear, upfront cost disclosures and regulation, I can’t comfortably or confidently assess the true trading costs for indices like the US100 with them. This is a risk I’m not willing to take, as cost predictability and trust are foundational to my trading process.