Our Review Methodology

Home Our Review Methodology

How Ettran Reclaim reviews brokers and platforms

Every review on Ettran Reclaim is built from evidence a reader can check for themselves. We do not rate platforms on impressions or marketing claims. Where we raise a concern, we state what we looked at, what we found, and how confident we are — and we hedge language (“appears to be”, “we found no record of”) wherever a finding is not conclusive.

What we check

  • Domain registration records (RDAP / WHOIS). We look up when a platform’s domain was registered and by which registrar. A recently created domain paired with claims of a long track record is a red flag worth noting. Readers can re-run the same lookup at any RDAP service.
  • Regulatory registers. We search the public registers of the relevant authorities — for example the FCA (UK), ASIC (Australia), SEC and FINRA (US), CySEC (Cyprus), FSMA (Belgium), CNMV (Spain) and BaFin (Germany) — to see whether a firm is authorised for the activity it advertises, and whether any warning has been published against it.
  • Withdrawal and complaint patterns. We review publicly reported user experiences, focusing on repeated, specific complaints (frozen accounts, withdrawal barriers, pressure to deposit more) rather than isolated opinions.
  • Corporate and contact transparency. Whether a platform discloses a verifiable legal entity, address and regulated status.

How we express uncertainty

Absence of a regulatory record is not proof of fraud, and we say so. Our reviews describe risk, not verdicts of guilt. When new information arrives — including from the platforms themselves — we update the review and note the change.

Corrections

If you represent a platform we have written about and believe a fact is wrong, email support@ettran.com with the specific claim and your evidence. We correct verified errors promptly and record that a correction was made. See our Editorial Standards.