This, again? Sigh..
After a long period of consultation and research, ESMA reached the conclusion that allowing up to 90% of European based gamblers, to lose up to €30k each inside three months, due to principally the misuse and misunderstanding of excessive leverage, was unacceptable. They then took the right decision to lower leverage in an effort to discourage the hopeless, reckless gamblers.
ESMA know that retail FX is gambling and that it is a bit of a joke, but they don’t want to kill people’s freedom, similar to how recreational gamblers and losers should be allowed to gamble: on horses, in seedy casinos, online playing poker, bingo whatever...
You’re reaching for the tin foil hat at every opportunity here, desperately trying to find an agenda or conspiracy were none exists. I’m surprised, given that you attempt to project an air of success, why the decision has bothered you so much and why you’d align yourself with the $200 account size, 1:500 leverage mob. Actually on reflection I’m not surprised, it’s now obvious why you closely align yourself with such a cabal of failure...
After a long period of consultation and research, ESMA reached the conclusion that allowing up to 90% of European based gamblers, to lose up to €30k each inside three months, due to principally the misuse and misunderstanding of excessive leverage, was unacceptable. They then took the right decision to lower leverage in an effort to discourage the hopeless, reckless gamblers.
ESMA know that retail FX is gambling and that it is a bit of a joke, but they don’t want to kill people’s freedom, similar to how recreational gamblers and losers should be allowed to gamble: on horses, in seedy casinos, online playing poker, bingo whatever...
You’re reaching for the tin foil hat at every opportunity here, desperately trying to find an agenda or conspiracy were none exists. I’m surprised, given that you attempt to project an air of success, why the decision has bothered you so much and why you’d align yourself with the $200 account size, 1:500 leverage mob. Actually on reflection I’m not surprised, it’s now obvious why you closely align yourself with such a cabal of failure...
Disliked{quote} I agree. And I never objected this (despite Spreadbetter defines me as “delusional” :-) ). My only irritation of ESMA is the definition they use to justify this regulation - “to protect retail traders”, ... real? :-). Why they just did not say “In order to do FX trading brokerage account need to be limited to 30:1 leverage”. Period! Well defined and clear - if one can sustain such trading - fine, if not - one will move to other business or areas.Ignored
"The meek shall inherit the earth.." Yeah right, good luck with that shit..