WikiFX

Rispondi

In my personal experience researching forex brokers, one of the first things I look for is transparency in all areas—especially when it comes to fees like inactivity charges. When I reviewed Zora, I found the regulatory situation to be highly concerning. The broker, according to my research, is not regulated by any reputable authority, carries a "suspicious regulatory license" flag, and is even labeled with high potential risk. More worryingly, its WikiFX score is extremely low and there are multiple warnings urging caution. Despite combing through the available data and feedback, I was unable to find any clear statement or formal disclosure from Zora regarding inactivity fees or their application circumstances. The lack of official documentation is an issue itself, as reputable brokers typically provide detailed fee schedules—including specifics about dormant accounts or inactivity penalties—on their platforms or customer agreements. This lack of clarity, in my view, creates unnecessary uncertainty for traders like myself who both trade frequently and hold positions for longer periods. As a result, I must advise extreme caution. A trustworthy broker should be upfront about all possible costs, and the absence of information here suggests either poor transparency or possible hidden charges. For me, if a broker cannot openly state their inactivity fee policy, I would be hesitant to trust them with my funds, regardless of their years in operation. My advice is to prioritize transparency and regulatory status with any broker—especially where policy details like inactivity fees are either vague or entirely missing.