WikiFX

Reply

In my experience as an active trader, the regulatory status of a broker is a primary factor when assessing how well my funds are protected. Unfortunately, with I-Access, I am deeply concerned: it currently operates without valid regulation, and its Hong Kong securities license has been revoked. Not only does this mean there’s no external authority supervising their operations, but key safeguards—such as mandatory client fund segregation, regulatory audits, and compensation schemes—are missing entirely. For me, these are non-negotiables; legitimate oversight is what ensures a broker cannot misuse client deposits or engage in arbitrary practices. Without regulatory protection, if I encountered an issue like disputes over withdrawals or account manipulation, recourse would be limited or nonexistent. I also noticed that the domain status restricts client transferring, adding yet another layer of uncertainty and risk. While I-Access offers various trading products, the absence of credible regulation means my funds would be vulnerable in ways I’m not willing to accept. As a cautious trader, I prioritize trust, transparency, and concrete legal protection over the availability of trading instruments, and I would not risk my capital with a broker lacking these safety mechanisms.