WikiFX

Rispondi

As someone who has spent years evaluating forex brokers, I prioritise regulatory clarity and transparent fee structures before even thinking about opening a trading account. With MC900, I immediately noticed several red flags based on my research and the most recent available data. The broker is listed as “unverified” under both CYSEC and FCA regulatory claims, which means there is no reliable oversight holding them accountable. Practically speaking, this lack of solid regulation makes it very difficult—even risky—to trust any claims the company makes about its account offerings or commission structures without further, verifiable evidence. Adding to my caution, MC900 has received a very low overall score, and clear warnings about “high potential risk” and “suspicious regulatory license” are present. There is no transparent documentation regarding ECN or raw spread accounts, nor any specific details available on trading commissions per lot. In my experience, established and trustworthy brokers offer clear schedules outlining exactly what traders will be charged for each trade, especially on ECN accounts where commissions per lot are a standard industry practice. Given MC900’s opacity, lack of proper regulatory credentials, and absence of concrete information about costs, I personally would not proceed or assume there is any standard ECN or raw spread commission structure in place. Until MC900 can provide verifiable fee schedules and come under proper regulatory supervision, I strongly recommend extreme caution. For me, the lack of transparency alone is a dealbreaker, regardless of any implied account type.