Yes I did join up FX united. Primarily so I could take a peak inside the platform.

Ive read through your blog, Initially believing it to be BS marketing ploy by FX using the persona of a risk adverse professional, providing some scrutiny and raising the negatives but with the positives far outweighing the negatives. In short i believed it was a scam promoting a scam.

My view has changed considerably, my thinking leans more towards that this is a fairly honest account of the process you went through in making the assessment.

You have been consistent in your view that risk mitigation must prevail above all else which means that you are minimising your potential loss. So the worst outcome is the net difference of what you get back against your investment.

But what really makes these scams so incredibly lucrative to those that peddle them, is in the simplicity of the structure. Even the most placid and risk adverse will experience a change in mindset, moving from cautious/cynic to balanced risk play to reliable yield. Its a function of time each additional monthly validation increases confidence and layer by layer removes the perception of risk. Along this timeline there is a tipping point where as a result of the build up of confidence, consistent validation fueled by other external factors, results in false belief that they have developed or unlocked financial IQ, intuition and expertise (especially since those that speculated that this was 'dodge bro' actually were wrong and you the investor was right all along). Which results in making a decision that has completely shattered the future for the investor and their families.

The arbitrage is obvious 11% return per month and the bank charges 6% per year, the dead weight of equity in the family home, an income stream which is life changing. The astute savvy investor that has emerged runs the scenario's whats the maximum available equity that can be drawn down against whats the passive income stream that would be 'life changing' for their family. The quantum of the resulting investment is in the end not driven by rationale decision making but by how significantly the external environment influences behaviour.

You mention that you were first introduced by a fast talking Malaysian Ferrari lover, (which had more of a negative impact than positive). What you probably haven't experienced is the charade in all its glory. This is part due to geography, the quantum invested (and what you are likely to invest).

Well thats ok. Because regardless if they are or not, it doesn't matter. The investment as presented simply does not exist.

It can't, its mathematically impossible.

But it is the most efficient investment scam and maximise the amount that can be scammed. By comparison a wolf of wall street bucket shop is chicken feed, some that only has $10k to punt on a bucket stock. Might have $200k they can draw off their equity in their house.

• Innocent till proven guilty, distorts the process. Because there is an acceptance that the investment at its core is achievable, and the answers provided appear on face value plausible. (If you assume its possible then its pretty easy to be convinced its plausible, the real test is the money hitting your account each month).

• Asking the wrong people. those that are up-line and those who are performing the illusion are going to repeat what they say each time. 1. sending my money via that channel worked no problem 2. I'm close to the action and they know what they are doing 3. The naysayers are jealous 4. They just don't understand thats why they are the way they are. 5. Prove it. We can't show you, its proprietary methodology and technology. The proof is the payments.

Its not about how much money you lose from this process, it the devastation that is caused to the last ones in are always the ones that lose the most, that needed it the most and will be most effected by it.

Prove to yourself that this is is possible;

- What are the total 'minimum' returns required to make it real.

- 132% p/a to you + the kick upline + operating overheads

- the time and costs associated with putting the cash to work, unwinding it to provide liquidity for the monthly redemptions, a liquidity buffer for variances in the market. Substantially more cash on hand to ensure that in the event that an investor wants all their money back there is sufficient cash on hand to do so (the ability to redeem with little notice combined with the monthly outflows would create such tight constraints on their trading strategies, it becomes very clear just how unobtainable the minimum targeted returns are.

Not only is it an annualised return >250% on the capital that can be mobilised. This is 10x what a real fund achieves.

Regardless of what ever bullshit autobot trading crap they think they have, the odds are stacked against them to start.

A fund, have a large pool of capital to invest over a defined time period (say 5 years). they are performance driven over an agreed hurdle rate (minium required return to investors before the managers get their snouts in the trough.

8% (per annum) and then they might get 20% of the upside.

By comparison, at least 200% is required just to meet obligations, more if you incorporate performance incentives. Its far from a level playing field. Within 30 days having probably less than80% utilisation on the remaining cash after keeping aside the upline fee's means straight out of the gates they are in a challenging position.

The segregation of capital, the interruptions caused by the monthly redemptions and the ongoing liquidity requirements. Non of these questions i believe could be answered early.

So when you think about the above in the context of the overnight money market where capital would be earning 1-2% per annum. Whereas the money they have lent to trade is costing in real terms 0.5% and upwards PER DAY.

The argument that they have pools of capital from their own balance sheet (which will be used to justify how they have liquidity on hand).

• Daily - $39,863
• Monthly - $1,195,890
• Annual - $14,550,000