Talk:SpotOption

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recent developments[edit]

New info from London Daily Mail, Bureau of Investigative Journalism, and Times of Israel added to article. John Nagle (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Videos from sales manager.[edit]

The article has: "According to the Daily Mail, "videos posted online by Hong Kong-based SpotOption sales manager Thomas Chang in 2016 and former Middle East sales manager Fakhri Husseini in 2013 tell potential brokers that just 20 per cent of people who invest in binary options ever get any money back." The "video" they're referring to is really a PowerPoint presentation, which can be seen here.[1]. John Nagle (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on Smallbones's comment at COIN. I agree that this isn't the appropriate time and place to slavishly follow the recent RSN decision on Daily Mail. Knowing this would come up I looked a bit for a replacement source for the 80%/20% factoid yesterday, without success. Will continue to do so. - Brianhe (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a verified account for Thomas Chang? If not, then it's not a reliable source, either. Guidelines and policy say that contentious material relating to living people that is not sourced to a reliable source MUST be removed immediately. This isn't about "slavishly" following the RSN decision. The COI issue, while certainly a problem, is ultimately unrelated. Or do policy and guidelines regarding removal of improperly sourced contentious material not apply when we don't like the methods of the person who's trying to remove it? I'm just very confused why experienced editors are fighting the removal of improperly sourced content. Am I just completely missing something here?? Waggie (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly, for me, there are broader issues of public interest at stake. We're talking about unknown numbers of people, certainly in the tens of thousands, being defrauded of billions of dollars. The other editors will have to speak for themselves. - Brianhe (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. This is all the more reason for us to make absolutely certain we have everything supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia is neutral and does not take positions on anything, we simply summarize what reliable secondary sources say on a topic. Waggie (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, reliable sources are bedrock for Wikipedia. In this case I read the RSN admonishment "Daily Mail is generally unreliable ... Volunteers are encouraged to review [links to Daily Mail], and remove/replace them as appropriate" emphasis mine to give us some time to find an appropriate replacement, we don't need to immediately blank it and deprive readers of information which there is no other reason to doubt, since it is reporting on statements made by official representatives of the company in a public forum. The fact that the video is no longer online is really not relevant unless we assume the reporter was flat out lying about having seen it. There's no reason to make that assumption. This is what I meant by not slavishly (indiscriminately/unthinkingly) removing all citations immediately. This is an exceptional case of really improving Wikipedia's content, coverage and balance by retaining it for now. - Brianhe (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brianhe, thanks for replying again. We don't have this "video" that DM speaks of, the slideshow isn't confirmed to be a primary source (a primary source isn't considered reliable on social media unless it is a confirmed social media account) and isn't reliable as a secondary source. I can quote from WP:RS, if you like? To expand on your quote from the RSN admonishment: "... As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles." (Emphasis added) As noted in the RfC discussion, the Daily Mail has a history of mis-attributing statements to people who didn't make them, especially on contentious topics, thus it makes perfect sense to me to challenge this source. I have always felt that in the case of contentious issues and in this age of fake news, it is of even more importance (and in the public's best interest) to ensure we have only content sourced from quality sources - we can make no assumptions. I've removed the material in question again, but if you can find a reliable source to support it, I will gladly accept the content back into the article. I did already spend some time looking for a reliable source to support it, but didn't find one, but perhaps I missed something? Thank you again for discussing with me. Waggie (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is moot as Smallbones has found another source for it [2]. - Brianhe (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What we know, and what we don't know.[edit]

Clearly we have a COI problem at SpotOption. What do we really know here? We have good sources for SpotOption being the back end of much of the Tel Aviv based binary option industry. We have good sources for Banc De Binary being a scam. We have good sources for SpotOption being the back-end service behind Banc De Binary. We have good sources for most of the Tel Aviv based binary options industry being a scam.

SpotOption itself says they are actively recruiting affiliates [3] and they have a pitch about how profitable it is to be an affilate.[4]. As of January 2016, they claimed 70% of the binary option market, $5 billion in turnover a year, and 250 affiliated "brands".[5].

What we don't have are reliable sources about the exact relationship between the more crooked affiliates and SpotOption itself. We quote Tammy Levy of SpotOption as saying “SpotOption is a technology company, okay? Everyone is responsible for checking regulation in the jurisdiction where they want to work. I am here to tell you what options you have technologically.” We can properly go that far. We don't have reliable sources to show that SpotOption itself is a criminal enterprise. John Nagle (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are the sources behind the statement "once SpotOption's largest client, shut down in January 2017 after being fined or prohibited from operating in multiple countries on four continents"? The Wikipedia article for Banc De Binary says three continents, and references the Financial Times.. Waggie (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to three continents. There are multiple source for the BdB shutdown and their various problems at Banc de Binary. John Nagle (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spot Option Exchange[edit]

SpotOption at one time operated a regulated binary option exchange in Cyprus.[6] The site was "spotoptionexchange.com". It's a blank page now, but it was live until October 2016.[7]. They were fined EUR10,000 by CySec in early 2016.[8]. Any more info on that? John Nagle (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps somebody with more financial savvy can incorporate this into the text. - Brianhe (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliates[edit]

I have moved the list of affiliates here from the article, (1) because it is sourced only from a non-independent source, namely SpotOption itself; but (2) because it does not add encyclopedically to the article. If the cited affiliates were independently notable, it might so function, but otherwise it should suffice to say that in 2016 SpotOption claimed to have over 300 affiliates.

  • BD Swiss, a licensed brand of Keplero Holdings Ltd.
  • 10 Trade
  • Dragon Options
  • FXDD
  • OneTwoTrade
  • OptionTrade
  • OptionRally
  • OptionWeb
  • AAAFx
  • MFXoptions (Belize)
  • Interactive Option, a brand name of Pegase Capital Limited, formerly K.J.W Krisworld Development Ltd
  • RoboOption
  • GrowBinary, a unit of Growell Capital
  • HyOptions
  • ZoneOptions
  • ForestPark BX (US)
  • TrustTrade (Russia)<ref>"SpotOption - Some Brands". SpotOption. 2016-02-15.</ref>

--Bejnar (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added it back in. It's important to their way of doing business. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added that list. It's a placeholder as we find more info and better sources about some of those brands/affiliates. Some have their own regulatory issues, for which there are cites. BD Swiss has been fined by the Cyprus regulatory authorities.[9] Forest Park BX, which was in the US, seems to have disappeared. John Nagle (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The individual names are not important unless there is information. Please only include those affiliates about which there is information in cited reliable sources that is relevant to this article. --Bejnar (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Added back BD Swiss with more citations. OptionRally also seems to have had some problems.[10] John Nagle (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Creation of Forest Park BX in the U.S. is referenced here. [11] and here [12] - Brianhe (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear if Forest Park BX is still using SpotOption. They use the Cantor Exchange (a real CFTC-regulated exchange), which uses Tradologic software.[13] Tradologic is in Singapore. [14]. John Nagle (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nagle: suggest you take a look at EL #11 (Finance Magnates). It talks about "the new SpotOption platform for the Cantor Exchange". Brianhe (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See [15]. SpotOption and Cantor Exchange terminated that arrangement in March 2016. John Nagle (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder[edit]

Any contributor to this article or this talk page who is paid to contribute needs to declare their paid status according to our Terms of Use. See WP:Paid. There is a discussion at WP:COIN now about this article. I noticed in particular that one editor had a user name which was the same as the real name of person mentioned in the article. An IP also claimed to be the marketing director of the company (that is presumably a paid position).

Please everybody just be careful. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful with sources[edit]

This is mostly a note to myself, but others may benefit as well. There are lots of sources that are tied to the industry that sometimes give good info, and sometimes don't. It's very important to distinguish these and even to ignore "good info" at times. A case in point is Banc De Binary seizes its operations from ForexNewsNow. I think the headline writer meant "ceases" instead of "seizes" but who knows? Of particular interest is their statement "Banc De Binary is one of the many subsidiaries of the SpotOption exchange, which is based in Israel." Perhaps "subsidiaries" is just a bad translation of "affiliates", but who knows? It's important enough that I archived the page. As I said, this is mostly a note to myself to be careful. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: I think you're saying there are issues requiring us to go above and beyond the usual article's care, involving language issues (possibly with Russian and Hebrew) and deliberate obfuscation? - Brianhe (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Part of it is that the industry sources can be both very good and very bad. The journalists IMHO are trying to do a good job, but perhaps the owners know where their ad revenue is coming from. There are also SEO effects - some of the best sources are hard to find in a simple Google search. It's just a hard area to get the best journalism. Also, things are falling apart for the industry, so there can be some bizarre stories. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a badly written article. It does raise the issue of the relationship between SpotOption and their affiliates/brands. SpotOption was rather open about this until about a year ago, and reading their site from late 2015 is helpful.[16]. At that time, they offered a broad range of services. There were at least four different software offerings, a "white label" program, and a "reseller" program. There was also SpotOption Exchange, based in Cyprus and licensed as a market maker.[17][18] That site now returns a blank page. SpotOption even has a YouTube channel, which gives insight into what they tell affiliates and what they tell customers. John Nagle (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting back in Israel.[edit]

SpotOption says they're cutting back operations in Israel, due to regulatory pressure. They say they will "magnify the Hong Kong, Singapore, and London branches." [19] John Nagle (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to be able to add to the article some info on why the regulatory conditions in China or UK are considered favorable. And how many SW dev staff, if that's what they are, are remaining in Ramat Gan. - Bri (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added that in the lede, but I'm sure much more could go in the body of the text. Also please note that at the very bottom of the article in the external links section I added a link to a SpotOption/LeapRate video on YouTube. This explains exactly what they say you need to start your own brokerage company. I think it is precisely an explanation of what they do and what we want to have in the article, but I can see that others might differ. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's early yet on the move. No good press coverage. John Nagle (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SpotOption is in the gambling industry[edit]

A COI editor recently made an edit to make it appear SpotOption is not in the gambling industry. However, SpotOption exhibited at ICE Totally Gaming 2017, one of the world's largest gambling industry conventions.[20]. Stand N7-430. Here's a picture.[21].

Here's SpotOption again, sponsoring awards at the 2016 iGaming Business Affiliate conference.[22] Note the large signs, "SpotOption - World's Leading Binary Option Platform Provider". The 2017 conference video [23] has no SpotOption signs, so they seem to be less visible in that market. John Nagle (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal activity[edit]

See [24].

Israel Police Superintendent Gabi Biton told the Reforms Committee on August 2 that Israeli crime kingpins are behind the binary options industry and that organized crime in the country has been massively enriched and strengthened as a result of law enforcement’s failure for many years to grasp the vastness of the problem.

“Our eyes have been opened,” said Biton, who investigates financial fraud and money laundering. “What we’re seeing here is a massive organized criminal enterprise. We are talking about criminals at various levels of crime organizations, up to the very top.”

At Monday’s Reforms Committee meeting, the third of three held by the committee in the past week, the main topic of discussion was binary options platform providers like SpotOption, TechFinancials and Panda, and whether or not they would be allowed to continue to operate from Israel even as the firms and call centers to which they provide technology are outlawed.

Representatives from SpotOption argued that they merely provide technology to binary options websites and that the bill should be changed so that their activity is not banned. Representatives of Israel’s Justice Ministry and the police said that platform providers, without naming SpotOption specifically, in fact host and operate the binary options websites and receive a percentage of each transaction, and therefore should be covered by the ban, as they will be if the law passes in its current form.

But police superintendent Biton told the panel that the technology companies behind binary options websites do in fact participate in the websites’ questionable activities. “They run the websites and the payment processing, and also have the ability to influence the results of trades,” the police officer said. John Nagle (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SpotOption&oldid=1198745727"