I tend to believe this is some form of Goodhart's law running amok, but when I see obnoxious ads converting I have to wonder if the emotional response eventually boils off leaving behind that sweet sweet brand awareness.
I once lived in a damp limestone house where a gust of wind would scatter papers off the kitchen table with all the doors and windows shut.
One winter night the temp dropped below 5°C for the third or fourth time in a century. Unprepared, I considered the usual options: head in the oven or write code. I chose code. I built a blanket fort, tinkered with Electron a bit, considered the oven option again, and finally got my space heater going:
All I see is a textbook reductio ad absurdum argument and aggressive demands to prove a negative. You've eliminated room for nuance in a discussion about a very complex and nuanced issue and displayed your bad faith for all to see. If you were shooting to portray the things you're advocating for in a haughty and intellectually bankrupt manner then you've succeeded admirably.
The irony of that whole situation is that FXCM allegedly helped draft a bunch of the regulations as big companies are prone to do but the government took them, cranked them up to 11, and killed FXCM with them instead of just their would-be competitors.
Not OP, but a broker wouldn't even need a front-running bot. If they're the intermediary (A book) then they can just apply markups to the quotes from their maker. If they're the maker (B book), they're the ones quoting the prices. Front-running is moot in either case.
I've heard lots of rumors and wild conspiracy theories about things like this but a lot of it is impractical if not impossible using industry standard platforms and software. I can't even imagine a broker manipulating the quote feed for thousands or tens of thousands of other traders just to hit one guy's stop but that doesn't stop people from being paranoid. Many traders worry about this so much that they won't use stops.
Things that are commonly done which could be described that way include delaying orders, changing spreads, and reducing account leverage. There are legitimate purposes for doing these things but the potential for abuse is certainly there. A quick Google for "virtual dealer plugin" will tell you more if you're interested.
I've also heard that some brokers will supposedly induce "artificial" slippage but to me that seems like a lot of effort and risk for very little reward unless it's done on a massive scale.
I'm familiar with the industry and I can corroborate most of this. I'm fairly certain I know where you worked based on that product description and if I'm correct then we've more than likely met once or twice.
Retail FX is a surprisingly small community and I often wonder how many people really know how the sausage is made. Aside from a handful of properly bankrolled professional traders and the odd compulsive gambler, people who have had a peek behind the curtain tend to stay away from trading. This isn't necessarily because brokers are shady— even the most honest broker will have no problem making money off its clients. People need to understand that FX trading is a set of skills which takes a lot of time, money, and effort to acquire and keep current. Even with the requisite skills, consistently grinding out the same hourly income you'd get working the Arby's drive thru requires a five figure bankroll to maintain sustainable levels of risk in the long-term. Trading is a real job which requires lots of real work.
The shady part is allowing traders to be lured in by MLM-esque instagram influencers in rented Ferraris and approving high leverage accounts for people who have $50 and no clue what they're doing and no chance of success. The smaller fish also tend to pay larger spreads and commissions, stacking the deck against them even further. Watching these guys trade is like seeing someone in a 2004 Hyundai Sonata pull into the Nürburgring during an F1 race.
Volatility and leverage get a bad rap. Yes, they give you plenty of rope to hang yourself with, but they're also some of the most powerful weapons at your disposal if you're quantifying and managing your risk properly. The majority of retail traders take on insane levels of risk at some point or another because it sucks spending hours on your setups for a $5 profit. It only takes a single moment of weakness to take on enough excess risk to blow an account in one go, and that's why B book models are so ubiquitous and profitable. Sure, there are countless ways an unscrupulous broker could abuse their position as the counterparty to your trades and the distrust they get is rational and mostly well-deserved, but having a thumb on the scale isn't even necessary when there's a seemingly endless supply of idiots who think they can take $1,000 and martingale it into millions.
That said, I think people worry disproportionately about B books. In general, "A book" (aka "straight through processing") just means your position is routed (hedged) elsewhere with some other counterparty. There's nothing inherently bad about this, but be aware that these makers have the same incentive to separate you from your money and they tend to be much more sophisticated and less transparent than retail brokers in doing so. A prominent and easily understood example of this is last look execution. In most cases I'd rather be on an honest broker's B book than tossed in with the sharks. The problem is, if I'm winning, I'm getting tossed in with the sharks anyway.
None of what I've described is necessarily illegal. If you wanted to get me going on the illegal stuff, I could go on all day about the mismanagement and outright fraud that I've witnessed personally. If you're hell bent on trading FX, choosing a broker operating under a reputable regulator drastically reduces your odds of falling victim to this and gives you some recourse in the rare event it does.
> amazed anyone put in any effort to make the Metatrader product look pretty. There's 0 money in it. The existing market does NOT like change.
The industry absolutely does hate change, but that includes their trading platform so there will probably be a market for MT4 trading tools and integrations for a while yet. Every effort is being made to kill it and get people using MT5 instead but there are still plenty of holdouts. MT5 will win eventually, but lots of people will have to be dragged kicking and screaming.
> most brokerages have code running to prevent their clients from developing a strategic advantage for that reason.
I know of a few things which might be described this way but I'm also curious what you're referring to specifically.
