The funniest thing is that the service is advertised and sold all the time. Customers buy a pig in a poke.
Hi DevBru! Thank you very much for the question. In the UK, a contractual agreement is perfectly fine and there is no need to become partners in the company.
Regarding this respectable partner. The company Appius Trading Limited was founded 5 months ago by Mr Csaba Ferenc Nahoczky (AKA Francis Nahoczky), the same guy who also became the new owner of Earn2Trade. A guy who has been involved with E2T since at least early 2019. When you said a respectable partner i assumed it would be an existing company that has been trading for at least a few years and build up some kind of reputation? It also turns out that when E2T wrote that they were looking for a new prop firm to partner with, Mr Csaba Ferenc Nahoczky was already busy setting up a string of companies that lead back to the registration of Appius Trading, those strings of companies go all the way back to July 2020, so instead of searching for a reliable partner it looks like the new owner of E2T started another firm that now is the prop firm traders get send to after getting funded. The one and only shareholder of Appius Trading Limited is Dunabia Holdings Limited, Dunabia Holdings Limited is also owned by Mr Csaba Ferenc Nahoczky and the one and only shareholder of Dunabie Holdings Limited is Atreides Holdings KFT, an Hungarian company also owned by Mr Csaba Ferenc Nahoczky with a total capital between $10K and $17K. So, how is this not sketchy and how exactly is this a respectable partner?
Hello DevBru, Francis was not the new owner of Earn2Trade, he was the majority shareholder of Earn2Trade, and purchased the remaining 10% of shares on July 1st 2020. The “string of companies” you are referring to are normal companies that serve different purposes within the group structure. The companies work with one another and there was a significant amount of time ensuring that the transfer pricing structure and vat taxation policies would be compliant. Different companies have different roles within the organizational structure. There is nothing unique about this and as you have already seen this information is publicly available on the internet. We will have to disagree with your idea of what qualifies a respectable partner. Our intention was to build and partner with a new prop firm that was not connected to the old ownership structure. Through the new partner firm Appius Trading Limited, and its brokerage partner Advantage (a respectable FCM with a long history in the market), traders will have access to the same excellent service they always enjoyed at Helios, with even lower commissions than in the past. We reiterate that the business of the former minority shareholder had nothing to do with Earn2Trade and took place before the company existed. The allegations were brought forth after the shareholder was bought out of the firm, and there are no allegations against Earn2Trade. We are proud of our reputation in our industry and we operate strictly within the confines of well-articulated legal opinions. We look forward to growing our business and offering the best opportunity for prospective traders. Our new UK connection is one step forward in our international growth and we have many plans to introduce new services and expand in new markets. We appreciate all constructive feedback and remain at your disposal for any clarifications.
You say " Our intention was to build and partner with a new prop firm that was not connected to the old ownership structure. " But is it not true that current owner is and was "part of old ownership structure" "Francis was not the new owner of Earn2Trade, he was the majority shareholder of Earn2Trade, and purchased the remaining 10% of shares on July 1st 2020." Also going back to Who owned Helios? Correct me if I am wrong Past: The "minority" shareholder of Et2 owned the "Prop" funding firm Helios Present: The "majority" shareholder of Et2 owns the "Prop" firm Appius Not implying that it is illegal but the thing that one arm charges for test and same owner owns Funding company is something that raises questions Is it becasue regulations won;t allow one entity to charge for test and also be the "Prop" becasue then the regulators could see that the "Prop" is at least partially funding the funder with the so called test fees" and thus it may require Broker dealer license Further: you mention of "brokerage partner Advantage (a respectable FCM with a long history in the market), Sure they are a regulated and respected FCM but that creditability has nothing to do with your creditability! This is like If I starts a non regulated FX business which takes deposit and if my bank account is with Citibank.. using Citibank's name as if they vouch for my business! For the FCM it is just another account.. so please don't tell us Advantage is endorsing this business indirectly.. it s just marketing gimmick Oh by the way if you do reply do it with points not the same ol "oh TJ we know you are against this business model) Devbru raises some excellent points Here is similar discussion https://futures.io/trading-reviews-...upport-ask-me-anything-ask-me-anything-5.html
Hello Traderjo, Your assumptions about ownerships are largely correct. The majority shareholder of E2T owns Appius. He also has been the majority shareholder of Helios for a while now. As to your point about why the prop firm is not the same company as Earn2Trade, firstly, our counsel directed us to structure the business group this way. Second, and more importantly, the differing roles of each business, including its need for taxation, banking, accounting and partnerships means for practical reasons it would be extremely difficult to run it under one company. Earn2Trade focuses on education, evaluation and content creation. The prop firm's focus is trading. The holding firm provides an ownership structure over the two companies. These activities require different corporate structures, different teams, accounting, internal processes and daily workflow procedures. Finally, ownerships may also necessitate structuring the activities differently. Regarding regulation, at this point we have received no reason to believe that the business model requires any licensing. Maybe there is a difference regarding how the regulators view it, maybe not, but it is not my position to comment on that or speak on their behalf. We can only act with the best legal advice we can acquire. I will add however that the company’s business model relies on the participation of third party vendors providing objective services. Earn2Trade provides the examination criteria and controls neither the platforms, the exchange nor the data feed provider. Regarding Advantage - we are genuinely excited about having them as the FCM of the new prop firm, for their experience, name recognition, as well as the lower commissions offered through them. It takes a long time to set up a corporate partnership agreement with an FCM. It is certainly not as simple as you make it seem in your analogy of an unregulated forex business acquiring a bank account. It took almost half a year to conclude an agreement, and we are very proud and excited to be working with them. I would like to add that we chafe at the comparison between the service we provide and that of an unregulated forex broker. We do not take the opposite side of trades, provide leveraged trading, trading advice or anything that would merit such a comparison. We have always addressed questions raised towards our company and our business model, many of them by you, in particular. I also thank you for posting the link to Futures.io, as it goes to show that we are often required to answer the same questions by the same people in multiple forums and that we take the time and effort to always clarify our positions. Unfortunately, as was observed by the moderator of the other forum, sometimes these questions can seem to be more about chasing a “gotcha” moment or grinding an axe about the business model rather than seeking objective information. In addition, we would like to reiterate that we are always interested in improving the experience of our candidates and addressing the concerns of our community. We cherish the ability to communicate with you all and appreciate the incredible objective feedback we have received over the years. At the moment, we are thrilled to offer candidates and traders lower commissions and a relationship with a new prop firm and FCM. We will be rolling out some exciting new services in the near future and look forward to sharing them with you.
Hello Traderjo, Regarding the corporate structure, we apologize if it was not self-evident. Please allow us to provide further clarification to assuage your concerns. The new corporate structure has a completely different ownership structure that does not include the former co-founder and is based in a different country. Regarding regulation, we have received legal opinions from many major economies that attest to the lack of regulatory license required to conduct our specific business model. If you are so disposed, we would greatly appreciate any information about your country that would say otherwise, so we can identify it for future reference. Regarding forum posts, it is not that people ask similar questions. It is that the same accounts on the same forums ask the same questions, at the same day/time even using the terminology. We think it is clear that the posts are made by the same people, perhaps we are mistaken, but it does not seem like such a likely coincidence in so many circumstances. We have no problem with answering any questions. On the contrary, we are always happy to answer questions, and we have always answered questions. We have seen many posts on this very forum with expressions of appreciation for our countless clarifications. We have even had some members point out themselves that we have answered the same questions on countless occasions. The vast majority of individuals on this and other forums respectfully question our business model and our company, and whether they do so or not we have always answered with the utmost care. In your case, any simple review of the countless discussions between you and our company throughout the past in this forum very clearly exhibit your attitude toward our company and this business model, and it is overwhelmingly negative. In your last two comments, you made an analogy between us and an “unregulated forex brokerage”, branded our partnership with Advantage a “marketing gimmick”, said that we are lucky for being able to operate our business (is every company “lucky” to do their business?), accused us of being mischievous or misleading, and then of attacking you personally (although you are a completely anonymous avatar), even after carefully responding to your questions without making any personal attacks. Any reader can come to their own conclusion about why your comments specifically always seem so loaded. We hope that provides further clarification. We are happy to answer any questions or comments and appreciate the capability this forum provides to do so.
Regarding the corporate structure It is only after somebody (DevBru) asked you had to disclose! and the point was "Do same people own the test fee taking entity and the "Prop funding" entity and has nothing to do with previous owner .. that is the past . I guess Devbru must also be madly on a war path against you as I am ( according to your perception) or do you want to accuse me of being Dev Bru avtar! Regarding Regulations, : In my country any Prop which take even a penny under the name of test fees etc will require Financial services license.. which is not easy to get , and if you carry such business without that ...sure they will come down upon you as ton of bricks Regarding forum posts: NO I did not post under a diff name on futures IO regarding this subject Fact is that people see similar things ..but you just don;t want to accept that and claim that "We think it is clear that the posts are made by the same people," At the end of the day Just like you have right to do business in your fashion me as consumer have a right to question the business model! and it is not just your business model the entire "Pay for test Prop business model.. which many have said is perhaps based on collect in hundreds of test fees and fund very few... You seems to be interested in personally attacking anybody question you? pathetic for a company I never called you scam or a fraud ..you may have a genuine interest in funding people or searching good traders but all me and others are saying is this business model is heavily loaded against the average aspirant and could turn in to a hamster wheel... Regarding Advantage: I stand by my comment that partnership with Advantage a “marketing gimmick”, Anybody who knows Futures knows that by allowing your "prop" firm to have an account with them DOES NOT MEAN THEY ENDORSE YOUR business model.. so it is silly to say Oh look we are in "Partnership" with Advantage.. any way I hope one day SEC will regulate this "Industry" as it is so close to being a equity Prop which is regulated Disclaimer: I do not work in Financial industry or True Props or pretend props