Misplaced Pages

Talk:Banc De Binary: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:18, 10 June 2014 editSmallbones (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers59,658 edits →Attempt to gain consensus← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:14, 16 February 2024 edit undoWidefox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers107,008 edits Assessment (Low): banner shell, Companies, +Gambling, +Crime and Criminal Biography, +Israel (Rater) 
(404 intermediate revisions by 68 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}} {{COI editnotice}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Companies |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Finance & Investment|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Gambling |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Israel |importance=Low}}
}}
{{connected contributor
| User1=BDBIsrael | U1-declared=yes
| User2=BDBJack | U2-declared=yes
| User3=Okteriel | U3-declared=yes
}}
{{Press
| collapsed=no
| title= Misplaced Pages Strengthens Rules Against Undisclosed Editing
| author= Jeff Elder
| date= 2014-06-16
| url= http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/06/16/wikipedia-strengthens-rules-against-undisclosed-editing/
| org= ]
|author2=Weinglass, Simona|title2=Misplaced Pages vs. Banc De Binary: A 3-year battle against binary options ‘fake news’|url2=http://www.timesofisrael.com/wikipedia-vs-banc-de-binary-a-3-year-battle-against-binary-options-fake-news/|accessdate2=31 May 2017|org2=]|date2=29 May 2017|quote2=Smallbones is drawn to edit Misplaced Pages articles about financial fraud because the topic interests him. But he regrets that it took at least three years to get the ] article to a place where he feels it is accurate and fair. If that’s how much work was required to correct one small instance of fake news, Smallbones was asked, how can companies like Google or Facebook, which rely heavily on algorithms as opposed to humans, keep the fraudsters at bay? Smallbones replied, 'Yes, well, most Misplaced Pages editors would probably agree that they can’t.'}}

}}
{{old afd multi|page=Banc de Binary|date=13 Jan 2013|result='''delete'''|page2=Banc De Binary|date2=14 May 2014|result2='''keep'''|page3=Banc De Binary (2nd nomination)|date3=4 Jun 2014|result3='''keep'''|numbered=yes}} {{old afd multi|page=Banc de Binary|date=13 Jan 2013|result='''delete'''|page2=Banc De Binary|date2=14 May 2014|result2='''keep'''|page3=Banc De Binary (2nd nomination)|date3=4 Jun 2014|result3='''keep'''|numbered=yes}}
{{Ticket confirmation|source=Banc De Binary|id=2013081110001911|license=cc-by-sa-3.0}}
{{WikiProject Finance |class=C |importance=low}}
{{Round in circles|search=no}}
{{ConfirmationOTRS|source=Banc De Binary|otrs=2013081110001911 |license=cc-by-sa-3.0}}
{{connected contributor|BDBJack|declared=yes}}
{{connected contributor|Okteriel|declared=yes}}

{{notaforum}} {{notaforum}}
== Company Names vs Service Companies ==

{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}
:''See update at end.''
I'd like to re-iterate the point that I made before on the talk page that Banc De Binary is the operating name of several companies including:

* Banc De Binary LTD (Cyprus)
* BDB Services LTD (Cyprus)

The other companies listed (BO Systems LTD and ET Binary Options LTD) are "service" companies which do not interact with the customers directly.

The company was never formally known as any other company, since all of its operations were done as "Banc De Binary". Listing companies is inconsistent with how other companies which have several "operating" companies are listed, for example:

* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]

In the examples I have provided above, I do not see any reference to the companies which "operate" under the brand.

I'd like to suggest editing the line:

<blockquote>Banc De Binary, formerly known as BO Systems Limited and also known as BDB Services Limited and ET Binary Options Ltd. is an Israeli-Cypriot based enterprise specializing in binary options (also known as fixed return options) on assets including commodities, stocks, indices, and foreign exchange."</blockquote>

As follows:

<blockquote>Banc De Binary is an Cypriot-Israeli company which offers Binary Options (also known as fixed return options) on assets including commodities, stocks, indicies and foreign exchange. </blockquote>

And having an additional section called "operating companies" which includes information about companies which operate under the brand "Banc De Binary" world-wide, and other companies which provide them services.
] (]) 03:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Banc de Binary simply uses different names, like with a person that has aliases, such as (a.k.a Oren Laurent). The company have said themselves that in deposition that they are small, less than 60 people, so the comparison to Coca Cola is either intended to be humorous or misleading. The photos taken inside their premises in Israel show that ET Binary Options is just an alias for Banc de Binary,{{or|date=June 2014}} the visible skyline of Ramat Gan out of the window in some of their helpful Youtube videos is another clue.{{or|date=June 2014}}] (]) 15:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC) <small> <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>tagged by ] (]) 22:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)</small>

:: That statement would ignore the fact that there are numerous videos of the office in Cyprus, from which you can clearly see the city of Limassol. Either way, regardless of the amount of employees, the fact that Banc De Binary has several companies operating under the same name due to regulatory concerns is not uncommon. And the precedent shown in the articles listed above shows that other companies do not have lists of their "operations" companies. ] (]) 16:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

In the case of companies like HSBC or Coca Cola, they have entirely different products for sale, which have to be branded differently. Banc de Binary has a tiny presence on sites like LinkedIN and photos of the employees together on it's Facebook page show it really does have less than 60 employees. Banc de Binary are solely an online gambling company that offers only binary options, if they could be termed that in the way they are packaged.{{cn|date=June 2014}} There's nothing else on offer, and the different companies have no different employees under them,{{or|date=June 2014}} there's no record of this in the Israeli companies house.{{cn|date=June 2014}} Calls to Cyprus are simply rerouted onto the real HQ in Ramat Gan,{{cn|date=June 2014}} in the same way any company has one number connected to another to give the impression of being in more than one place.{{or|date=June 2014}}] (]) 17:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC) <small>tagged by ] (]) 22:29, 7 June 2014 ( <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>UTC)</small>

::: I challenge you to prove the following statements:
*::: Banc de Binary are solely an online gambling company
*::: the different companies have no different employees under them
*::: Calls to Cyprus are simply rerouted onto the real HQ in Ramat Gan

:::My statements

*:::Banc De Binary offers a platform which allows traders to trade on Binary Options. Binary Options has NOT been defined as gambling, and is regulated as a financial instrument. (see which lists Banc De Binary as in a list of "
Investment Firms"
*::: Banc De Binary is required to have at least an auditor and an operational presence in Cyprus due to regulation. However if there are no employees in Cyprus, then how can you explain the following videos which were recorded in the Cyprus office? Even the person in the videos (Sarah Fenwick) has no presence in Israel. ( see http://www.sarahfenwick.com/ , http://cy.linkedin.com/pub/sarah-fenwick/20/36b/795 )
*:::: https://www.youtube.com/user/BancDeBinary
*::: Customer support is twice as expensive in Israel as it is in Cyprus.{{cn|date=June 2014}} What company in their right mind would spend twice as much to answer phone calls?

] (]) 00:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC) <small>tagged by ] (]) 22:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)</small>

:I have removed the <code>{{tl|edit semi-protected}}</code> template, because it should only be used ''after'' consensus has been established. I have left {{tl|request edit}} in place. This message is procedural. ] (]) 00:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:''' please establish a ] for this alteration before using the {{tlx|edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> — <span class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125;</span> <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 18:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
::Sorry I didn't identify the consensus clearly enough. {{done}} by ]. ] (]) 22:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

=== Updated References ===

The CFTC has updated the information in their litigation with Banc De Binary according to the following sources:
* http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6923-14
* http://leaprate.com/2014/05/11762/cftc-adds-banc-de-binary-affiliate-companies-and-controlling-shareholder-oren-laurent-to-its-original-complaint/

The statement (and explanation of the relationship between Banc De Binary Ltd., ET Binary Options, BO Systems Ltd., and BDB Services Ltd. is __"three corporate affiliates"__. A futher explanation can be found in the quote __"The amended Complaint charges that all four of the corporate Defendants operated as a common enterprise, each one individually and collectively, operating under the trade name “Banc de Binary.”"__

Thus it is suggested that the sentence in the first paragraph:
<blockquote>Banc De Binary, formerly known as BO Systems Limited and also known as BDB Services Limited and ET Binary Options Ltd., is an Israeli-Cypriot based enterprise specializing in binary options (also known as fixed return options) on assets including commodities, stocks, indices, and foreign exchange</blockquote>

be changed to:
<blockquote>Banc De Binary is an enterprise specializing in binary options (also known as fixed return options) on assets including commodities, stocks, indices, and foreign exchange</blockquote>
] (]) 00:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
*I have now met BDBJack on his talk. I also disclosed receiving an email from Mr Oren Laurent of BDB myself, and, so, given the climate: it's my reading of policy that, if you're very suspicious, you are free to treat BDBJack and Okteriel as the same editor for certain purposes. For instance if I agree with him I can understand that might be discounted. I hope this limited freedom won't result in any abuses.
*However, this edit request is pretty easy to agree with. The CFTC corrected itself last month, the article relies on bad old data, and this is the corporation's identity we're talking about, the very first thing a Misplaced Pages article needs to establish. And nobody can answer this ''or close it'' in two months? Just because SPA anti Historian and disclosed-COI pro BDBJack disagree, that's "no consensus"? but we don't close it either? Nobody can deny him but nobody wants to help him either?
*Other users commented in another section. There is now no remaining sourcing supporting the errant clause, and no other user argued that the edit request was incorrect in any way. I boldly submit that if there is still no opposition later, this should be converted to an "edit protected" template due to the consensus of all editors' silence who faced the question and ignored it. Thank you. ] (]) 19:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
'''Boldly''' trying this again to reflect budding consensus between me and Huon, at end of ], with the silence of everyone else who has seen the issue, that we can delete "formerly known as BO Systems Limited and also known as BDB Services Limited and ET Binary Options Ltd." as a total CFTC mistake corrected by a later draft. Details passim, sorry. If there is some problem, rather than closing the template, please comment here so it can be resolved quickly. ] (]) 01:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
:{{done}} by ]. ] (]) 22:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

== Edit Request ==

{{tl|request edit}}

I'd like to request that the following content line is edited

<blockquote>Banc de Binary customers do not execute their trades via a regulated exchange, but are 'betting' against the firm itself, and the firm only profits if the client loses.</blockquote>

This statement is not true. Banc De Binary customers execute their trades via a regulated exchange - the SpotOption exchange. See the following resources:
* http://www.spotoption.com/regulation/
* http://www.cysec.gov.cy/licence_members_1_en.aspx
* http://www.spotoptionexchange.com/

After reviewing the articles:
* http://thefxview.com/2013/08/16/binary-options-vs-forex-trading/
* http://www.daytradingcoach.com/binary-options.html

Both appear to be "marketing" or "affiliation" sites which are used direct users to register accounts with competing companies.

] (]) 04:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It has already been pointed out that both are reliable sources. SpotOption is an Israeli IT company that produces software for online gaming. Banc de Binary have bought a licence to use it. Part of the software is that it allows Banc de Binary to see how many people are betting on the asset going up or down, and then give an exact figure of the companies profit/ loss in either case. As has been stated in the US regulator's warning, some online binary companies have manipulated the software to produce losing trades.

In the case of Banc de Binary there is no wider exchange, where they are doing business with other companies in a transparent market, which is then overseen by independent assessors, such as NADEX. Instead, they just bought some software off Spotoption, which they customise and control with no third party verification from a government agency. A regulated exchange means exactly that. The only way Banc de Binary can make money is if a customer's bet on an asset loses, but as Banc de Binary are controlling the software which shows both the time & price at start and expiration this would be an obvious conflict of interest. For Banc de Binary to make money more people have to make a losing bet than a winning bet, as Banc de Binary are the only ones paying out. In a regulated exchange the company doesn't control the software showing the price or time, but it is overseen by an independent body. This is why it's called a regulated exchange.
When Banc de Binary pretended to be based in NY they tried to give this impression, but unfortunately the real US regulator found out.

Perhaps Banc de Binary can tell us where exactly their profits come from, if this is not the case? ] (]) 15:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>

: Saying that SpotOption produces software for online gambling is like saying that Scottrade is a casino. An "investor" who simply "gambles" can gamble anywhere - be it in Binary Options, stocks, bonds, or even real estate. SpotOption, regardless of it's Israeli headquarters, also has a headquarters in Cyprus where they have to maintain a presence due to regulation. This means that the regulators must have easy access to their offices, and they must have an auditor on-site, so as to ensure compliance with the CySEC regulation.

And as far as how we make our money, Banc De Binary does not charge fees from their investors. The profit comes from the difference between the options that expire in the money to options that expire out of the money. This difference can be found by the formula below. In this (for each base asset with same expiry characteristics), '''(W)''' is the in the money option payout in percentage terms (e.g. 1.7), '''(L)''' is the out of the money option payout in percentage terms (e.g. 0.15), '''<math> (V_{1}),(V_{2})</math>''' are the turnovers of transactions made for each outcome (e.g. $1,000), '''(S)''' is the platform's gain.

:'''<math> S = - </math>'''

In this example the platform's turnover is $2,000 and its profit is $150 or 7.5% on turnover. As the platform’s gain comes from the above formula, most platforms will be indifferent as to the outcome of a single trade. Note that if '''<math>V_{1}</math>''' is not equal to '''<math>V_{2}</math>''' then the platform will have to act as a market maker. This can cause the platform gain '''(S)''' to be more volatile than in the above formula. In order for a trader to make a long term profit he has to predict correctly roughly 54.5% of the time (depending on in-the-money and out-of-the money payouts).

In layman's terms, we make money on the difference between the payout from the option (100%) and what is given to the customer ( 75% - 90% depending on the option ). The entity which profits from the client loosing is the entity which purchases the opposing option.

Don't forget - we don't click the button for you. The client always has the ability to choose if and when they want to enter the position.

] (]) 16:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

According to the US regulators statement some online binary options companies make those choices for the customers, when it appears that the customer might have won, so that the company has now won instead. The company does indeed also appear to sometimes click the button for the customer to change their expiration time, and even the price of the asset on expiry. The customer does have the ability to choose, but what if the start price is completely wrong, and they have been duped?

You mentioned the phrase, layman's terms, but this is not the definition of it by any means. In this case it would be mean stating that Banc de Binary get back whatever the customers have lost, minus what they have won. With Banc de Binary controlling the software behind each trade a customer would need more than just to be lucky 54.5% of the time, they'd also need someone else from a proper regulator to control the software altogether, as in a regulated exchange. ] (]) 17:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>

Can you please be more specific as to which US regulator and which Binary Options company? Can you please show evidence of this "The company does indeed also appear to sometimes click the button for the customer to change their expiration time, and even the price of the asset on expiry"? If you were to have evidence of this, I think instead of trying to bash the company online on wikipedia, you would send a proper complaint to CySEC, since these statements are all accusations of violations of the terms of Banc De Binary's regulation.

Also, can you prove that it is in fact Banc De Binary and not SpotOption exchange that controls the prices, and the "software"? Since SpotOption Exchange is regulated, can you please define the usage of "proper regulator"?

HistorianofRecenttimes, can you please explain the nature of your "issue" with Banc De Binary?
] (]) 00:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

To say that the winner is the entity which purchases the opposing option seems slightly misleading. There's no guarantee that there is such an entity, although like any bookmaker the company presumably tries to attract a spread of bets on the possible outcomes. ] (]) 17:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

:Let us say for the moment that I do not understand. I just heard: SpotOption is an exchange regulated by CySEC. ] is an exchange regulated by CFTC. Cyprus is satisfied with SpotOption's (on-site auditor) control of BDB. US is satisfied with Nadex's (where) control of, well, ] I think. BDB voluntarily shut down some operations for a year or so. Nadex voluntarily shut down all operations for a year or so. Where exactly arises the claim that BDB is in control of its software, but Nadex isn't? I don't want to spread the correction drive to the ] article now, but if it's producing information that would mislead a careful reader, what should I do?

:Oh, dear, ] has absolutely no references and it's got a giant section about what binary options are! That second point reminds me of a draft I submitted here. And Nadex seems to be a competitor of either BDB or SpotOption. What to do? ] (]) 19:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:Anyway, that was facetious, good constructive edits are going on over at Nadex now, but what about here? ] (]) 00:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
::{{not done}} by ], imnsho, because of one word. "Bet" is a layman's colloquism and not an accurate or common technical term like "speculate". We are to use the technical language when the slang can be misleading; e.g. ] prose uses "bet" only once, in quotes, but "speculate" passim. Even at its longest, there is no cause to rely on the solecism in this article. So I made the technical correction.
::Huon reverted, "remove 'technical term' in favor of what sources report" and may not have noticed my summary request for comment here. The problem is that a source using a solecism in an informal setting doesn't allow WP to use it without giving the informal context. Even at its longest, the article is too short for the word "bet", with or without quotes, to avoid giving undue weight to the misleading notion that it is an unregulated gaming site. ] (]) 22:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Refactored 02:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Here's the guideline link: the word "bet" falls in the value-laden category of the word "]", specifically, words which become value-laden when used informally. ] (]) 02:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
::{{done}} if you take the present version. The sentences were recast to fit the sources better, and the word "gamble" in the footnote ''does'' meet the requirements of WP:TERRORIST, because in the WSJ's editorial oversight they wisely and correctly used the modifier "essentially". ] (]) 03:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

== Marketing Reference to NADEX ==

{{tl|request edit|D|R}}

In the section ] there is a reference to ]. I do not believe that this is relevant to the article and the statement is simply a "marketing" piece for ].
] (]) 18:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
:Unless NADEX is the largest or best known exchange of that type (they aren't, afaik), I don't think we should reference them there. ] (]) 16:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Er.... Nadex are the biggest legal, regulated exchange, and this is given for the sake of an example of what a proper exchange should look like] (]) 17:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
:] is not a regulated exchange nor does it operate as one. It operates as a brokerage firm, which means that it is the "middleman" between the end user and the exchange. The following articles describe Banc De Binary as a broker:
* http://www.binaryoptions.net.au/
* http://www.optionbinary.net/binary-option-reviews/9-bancdebinary-broker-review
* http://www.top10binary.net/top-10-binary-options-brokers
* http://www.money.co.uk/binary-options-trading-accounts.htm
* http://www.binaryoptionsaustralia.com.au/top-10-binary-options-brokers
* http://www.bestforexbinaryoptions.com/
* http://www.investing.com/directory/binary-options-brokers
Please note ] is not listed in any of these sources.

] (]) 17:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

::Those of the above "articles" I checked did not even remotely resemble reliable sources. One of them at least was honest enough to admit that they were paid by Banc de Binary and the other companies they "reviewed" - by ''all'' of them, without exception. Another rather obviously hosted profiles written by the companies themselves. More importantly, the sources currently given in the article explicitly contrast Banc de Binary to NADEX as the only entity that legally offers binary options in the US. Thus mentioning NADEX in this article is entirely justified. ] (]) 20:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Your analysis of BDBJack's links is irrelevant to the Nadex question, because he was simply using them off-mainspace to explain why it is ''different'' from BDB (and exclusible). I have not seen sourcing that Nadex is the "only" legal US binary provider, or the "biggest" anything at all (its article was unreferenced until we fixed it); I did see "first" something on its own site, which implies others. I am tagging this with failed-verification and quote-request. Linking Nadex in this article has not been established by any source. ] (]) 00:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Bilby has done good work in restoring links and providing paywall quotes, but I don't see the relevance of either Intrade or Nadex. I trimmed the 3 sentences back, which hemmed around the issue, to 1 sentence, which stated the actual allegation, which ''one would think'' is the most important thing to be said on the SEC's side. Before the filing, I understand BDB operated in the US without any requirement to get registered under any law. Then (presuming the SEC had given some warning first to BDB that we don't know about, without just going half-cocked to a chilling-effect filing), BDB discontinued at the same time as SEC complained for determination on the regulability of the prior activity. There is no need to make an uncontextualized allusion to Intrade to justify or rationalize the SEC, or to state that Nadex exists unless RS's show what laws were allegedly broken and that Nadex kept those same laws. I'd be interested to know just what charges were filed and what resolution came about (or is pending). But this is done enough for me. If a source can show the relevance of Nadex to the discussion, such as by showing whether they had any advisory influence on the SEC's action, that might be useful. ] (]) 04:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

== Restored some deleted citations, other issues. ==

Restored some deleted citations about CFTC, SEC, and US District Court actions.

Some data about names of people is cited to Whois information. That's a poor source. We need better sources on that.

Is Banc De Binary an exchange, a broker, or a ]? --] (]) 21:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

:That's a difficult question. It's certainly not an exchange, and no exchange for binary options exists, for all I can tell. According to BDBJack, with whom I spoke via IRC, they are a broker, with customers betting not against Banc De Binary itself but against a company called SpotOption, which, for all I can tell, is indeed a bucket shop. Reliable sources for any of that are scarce. ] (]) 23:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
::SpotOption itself says that Banc de Binary is one of their "brands". They also have "Banc de Swiss" and 33 more "brands". It's not clear whether these are affiliates, resellers, or business units of SpotOption, but they're all connected. Banc de Swiss, for example, looks a lot like Banc de Binary. . So does HD Options. They have a "white label program" and a "reseller program", and everything is hosted by SpotOption. Resellers just get to tweak the graphics a little.
::Maybe we should have a SpotOption article and merge Banc de Binary into it. SpotOption is clearly the "mastermind" behind all this. There's also SpotOption Exchange, which appears to be the entity that takes the financial risk. Maybe. It's hard to tell. The whole thing is set up like an on-line casino, not a brokerage or an exchange. SpotOption even offers a ''slot machine'' for trading binary options. (Video: . Worth watching.) They call this "trading entertainment". ] (]) 03:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
:::The sources are all primary, but SpotOption Exchange lists Banc de Binary as an "associate".. So Banc de Binary isn't just licensing the software; they're reselling SpotOption Exchange. In the legal agreements from SpotOption, we find "The Company sets the prices to be used in binary options trading." and "The Company shall be the sole execution venue for the execution of its clients’ orders.". So the counter-party is SpotOption Exchange itself. There is no "exchange" here; other traders are not counter-parties. Technically, this is a bucket shop. ] (]) 18:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

::::Good point - I've added this into the intro. It seems quite relevant to point out that the company can set it's own prices and that they don't have to respond to reality] (]) 17:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
:::::That edit wasn't quite right. Spot Option Exchange sets the price of the ''option'', not the asset. They don't have their own price for gold (one hopes). They have their own price for a ''binary option on what the price of gold will be'' at some future time. With ordinary options (on the ], etc.) there's a buyer and a seller, who are both customers of the exchange. The exchange just matches up offers for puts and calls. The CBOE itself is not a party to the transaction. But Spot Option Exchange doesn't do that. They themselves are the other party in the transaction, and, as the "house", they get to set the odds. ] (]) 18:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

== Edit Request with updated information from the CFTC ==

{{tl|request edit|R}}

I would like to have the following quotes updated to reflect correct information based on the articles below:
* http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6923-14
* http://leaprate.com/cftc-adds-banc-de-binary-affiliate-companies-and-controlling-shareholder-oren-laurent-to-its-original-complaint/


'''In the infobox'''
<blockquote>Oren Shabat Cohen, also known as Oren Shabat and Oren Laurent,</blockquote>

This statement is incorrect as Oren Laurent is legally known as "Oren Shabat Laurent" as shown by the sentence below:

<blockquote>Finally, the amended Complaint charges that during the relevant period Oren Shabat Laurent,</blockquote>

( http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6923-14 )

'''In the introduction paragraph'''

<blockquote>Banc De Binary, formerly known as BO Systems Limited and also known as BDB Services Limited and ET Binary Options Ltd., is an Israeli-Cypriot based enterprise specializing in binary options (also known as fixed return options) on assets including commodities, stocks, indices, and foreign exchange. </blockquote>

This statement is incorrect as "Banc De Binary" is the operating / trade name of several companies as shown by the sentence below:

<blockquote>The amended Complaint charges that all four of the corporate Defendants operated as a common enterprise, each one individually and collectively, operating under the trade name “Banc de Binary.”</blockquote> ( http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6923-14 )

------------------------------------

<blockquote>Charges filed on 7 August in the US stated that Banc de Binary and Oren Shabat Cohen "may be criminally liable under the federal RICO statute".</blockquote>

While there WAS a document stating this, the charges currently pressed against all companies operating as Banc De Binary and Oren Laurent are civil, not criminal in nature as shown by the sentence below:

<blockquote>In its continuing litigation against the Defendants, the CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties, and other remedial ancillary relief, including restitution, disgorgement, and rescission and a permanent injunction preventing the Defendants from engaging in certain commodity options activity with U.S. customers.</blockquote>
( http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6923-14 )

] (]) 23:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

:He may be legally known as that, but he does seem (per the other sources) to be "also" known as a great many things.

:There was and is a document stating that they may be criminally liable, so I don't see that that statement is untrue. ] (]) 11:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

:: He may be known as many things, but there are few examples of an executive being listed in Misplaced Pages by their "also known as" names. I do not think his other names are relevant to an article about Banc De Binary. This information should be posted in an article on Oren Laurent.

:: This article is in reference to Banc De Binary, not the personal liabilities of Oren Laurent. An article on Oren Laurent should contain this information, but the fact that Oren may or may not be criminally liable as part of a law suite should either be moved to a section related to legal issues or should be moved to an article pertaining to Oren Laurent.

:: Also, documents, especially those dealing with legal proceedings, are often revised and updated with '''up-to-date''' information. While there was an article citing that Oren Laurent "may be criminally liable", the latest versions of the documents have been updated with corrected and pertinent information to the case. The statement that Oren Laurent "may be criminally liable" is neither pertinent to the case, nor is it pertinent to an article about Banc De Binary, nor is it correct any more.

:: ] (]) 12:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

:::Oren is only notable because of BdB; there is no article about him. Hence information about him must go here, and a potential liability arising from the business of BdB is clearly pertinent.

:::I don't see that "a civil case is now being brought" contradicts "may be criminally liable". Regulators often bring a civil case when that seems to have a better chance of success. ] (]) 14:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

:::: The CFTC has not made further mention of the fact that Oren may be "criminally liable" in any of it's updated filings. The fact that a regulator may often bring a civil case when it seems that it has a better chance of success does not negate the face that there '''are''' and will be no criminal charges levied against Mr. Laurent as a result of litigation. Were such a regulator to start building a criminal case, they would most likely make note of it in further proceedings (which do not exist at this time). Essentially, what you're saying is that because a regulatory body filed a lawsuit against a company, the owner(s) could be criminally prosecuted. This would violate laws concerning ], thus Oren cannot be criminally liable.
:::: The reason the CTFC inserted all Banc De Binary bodies is so that Banc De Binary could reach a settlement and not be further liable for the same charges in the future.

:::: In regards to his relevance to the article, the precedent that you are making with including personal information about Oren Laurent in the article will allow us to also add personal information anyone who is related in any way shape or form to the article. If we are to consider this article to be an encyclopedic work, Oren Laurent should be referenced as the '''CEO'''. Any actions that Oren takes as CEO of the company are relevant to Banc De Binary, however personal information such as names he is known as or where he worked previously before working at Banc De Binary are not relevant and should be removed.

] (]) 15:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

BDBJack you are incorrect to write that because of Double Jeopardy rules, Oren could not be convicted in criminal proceedings, if they were preceded by a civil case. This link<ref>http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/double+jeopardy</ref> clearly explains that under US Law he could indeed be tried twice. Double Jeopardy does not apply all cases. But in any case, why doesn't Oren simply go to the US and explain why Banc de Binary is innocent? Perhaps for the sake of clarity you could write here exactly where the NAF Hedge Fund is as it doesn't appear on any lists of New York companies.] (]) 12:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>

: Were this an article about Oren Laurent, Oren's culpability legally could be discussed ad-nauseum. However since this is '''NOT''' an article about Oren Laurent, the whole discussion is a moot point. As far as why Oren doesn't go to the US to explain why Banc De Binary is innocent - that's what Lawyers who have much more experience in dealing with the intricacies of laws and regulations are for. And regarding '''NAF Hedge Fund''', it seems to be a clerical error made by a PR company. The site which you are using as reference seems to be purely a work of Banc De Binary's PR department, and if the example of other sources which have been removed due to being pure '''"marketing material"''' holds, then this reference should also be removed.

] (]) 12:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

::The article does not say Laurent is, or may be, criminally liable. It says that the charges filed on 7 August 2013 in the US stated that. That is true and well-sourced. It also does not say there have been any criminal charges brought subsequently.

::You should not add "personal information anyone (sic) who is related in any way shape or form to the article"; you have a conflict of interest. ] (]) 16:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

:::{{reply to|Pinkbeast}} The article may be well sources, how ever it is out of date. If you read the updated document (the most recent filing), you will find no such reference.

:::Relating to my conflict of interest - My COI is known and declared, however I do not see how this relates to the fact that Oren Laurent's personal information is not relevant to the article. His actions as '''CEO''' are relevant to the article, however information concerning his name and his aliases are not related to Banc De Binary and his operations as CEO.
:::] (]) 21:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

:::I think most people would consider it pertinent that the CEO of a financial services organisation can't decide what his own name is and seems to have worked somewhere that doesn't exist. ] (]) 09:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
::::This one looks done. Also, the first search engine result for the first search of "naf hedge funds" shows that ] is known as with a Hedge Funds department. Looks like a match. But how many times on talk has this been asked without being searched? ] (]) 05:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

== Blacklisted Links Found on ] ==

Cyberbot II has detected links on ] which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: ] or ]
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may ]. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist ] or ].
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the ].

'''Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:'''

*<nowiki>http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/soteris-flourentzou</nowiki>
*:''Triggered by <code>\bcompanydirectorcheck\.com\b</code> on the local blacklist''
*<nowiki>http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/pieris-hadjipieris</nowiki>
*:''Triggered by <code>\bcompanydirectorcheck\.com\b</code> on the local blacklist''
*<nowiki>http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/oren-shabat</nowiki>
*:''Triggered by <code>\bcompanydirectorcheck\.com\b</code> on the local blacklist''
*<nowiki>http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/uri-katz</nowiki>
*:''Triggered by <code>\bcompanydirectorcheck\.com\b</code> on the local blacklist''
*<nowiki>http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/yehezkel-shabat</nowiki>
*:''Triggered by <code>\bcompanydirectorcheck\.com\b</code> on the local blacklist''

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact ] and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—] ]<sub style="margin-left:-5.8ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">Online</sub> 11:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

== Blacklisted Links Found on ] ==

Cyberbot II has detected links on ] which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: ] or ]
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may ]. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist ] or ].
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the ].

'''Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:'''

*<nowiki>http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/oren-shabat</nowiki>
*:''Triggered by <code>\bcompanydirectorcheck\.com\b</code> on the local blacklist''
*<nowiki>http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/pieris-hadjipieris</nowiki>
*:''Triggered by <code>\bcompanydirectorcheck\.com\b</code> on the local blacklist''
*<nowiki>http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/soteris-flourentzou</nowiki>
*:''Triggered by <code>\bcompanydirectorcheck\.com\b</code> on the local blacklist''
*<nowiki>http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/uri-katz</nowiki>
*:''Triggered by <code>\bcompanydirectorcheck\.com\b</code> on the local blacklist''
*<nowiki>http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/yehezkel-shabat</nowiki>
*:''Triggered by <code>\bcompanydirectorcheck\.com\b</code> on the local blacklist''

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact ] and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—] ]<sub style="margin-left:-5.8ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">Online</sub> 20:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

== Contested deletion ==

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (because its don't have right info. Delete it) --] (]) 13:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

== Contested deletion ==

This page should not be speedily deleted because... This article is about a company that is the subject of current and serious legal action by the CTFC and SEC, making it noted and of great international interest. The company themselves have a huge presence online through their own PR team, making many claims and the Misplaced Pages article is the only truthful description of them --] (]) 19:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>

: "the Misplaced Pages article is the only truthful description of them" i think in this case 'truth' is a very vague term. It's truth, but not the whole truth ] (]) 20:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

::It's certainly notable enough to escape speedy deletion or proposed deletion. It might not pass ], but that's an AfD question. Per ], merely being crooked isn't enough to indicate notability. One possibility to merge to ], which already has some discussions of binary trading operations in Cyprus. Comments? ] (]) 06:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

:::This is a bit odd because AFAIK no-one is proposing speedy deletion. ] (]) 09:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

:::: {{reply to|Pinkbeast}} In revision https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Banc_De_Binary&oldid=608392127, {{reply to|C.Fred}} removed the request for speedy deletion.

:::: {{reply to|John Nagle}} How would merging the articles work?

<s>:::::Maybe not speedy deletion, but AfD seems reasonable for me per ], may be even deleting the info and then merging with the discussion on binary options would be the best in my opinion. Please also note that most of the references don't have anything to do with the company or are from very doubtful websites.] (]) 13:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)</s>

] (]) 10:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It does appear that as editors send by Banc de Binary have been unable to change this article, they hit on another plan, to attempt deletion. As the first 'Binary Options' company to face action by the CTFC and SEC it is very notable. Merging the article is a bad idea which would remove the details about Banc de Binary's reasons for problems with US regulators and thus remove the full picture of what has been going on in the world of unregulated online gaming. BTW, I checked the CYSEC list of regulated companies, why is it that Banc de Binary do not give a telephone number like all the others<ref>http://www.cysec.gov.cy/licence_members_1_en.aspx</ref>, surely this is pevidence that they're not really in Cyprus other than with a virtual office. ] (]) 20:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>

:<span class="template-ping">@]:</span> Regardless of their motive, there is an AfD discussion ongoing. That said, I've noted the account with the declared COI, and the SPAs have been noted in the AfD discussion. —''']''' (]) 21:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

:{{reply|HistorianofRecenttimes}} "It does appear that as editors send by Banc de Binary have been unable to change this article, they hit on another plan, to attempt deletion." - This seems to be quite an accusation - one which has no evidence. As for the motion to delete, I do support it because it would be beneficial to the company, but mostly because the article really has very little to do with the company and more to do with the relations between the company, SEC and CFTC. Were this an article with some substance I would be completely against deleting it. However it is being used as a place to voice all of your complaints about the company, a large part of them which are completely imagined. HistorianofRecenttimes, is there something that I can help you with? If it's something that you would like to keep private we can arrange another form of communication to help sort out what ever personal issues you have with the company. While uncommon, there is no reason that we cannot use this medium as a method of mediation - just tell us what your issues are. Regardless, the accusation that BDB has started spamming wikipedia to bring down a page should be sourced, not just thrown out there - same as calling us an unregulated gaming company.

: Also, the fact that CySEC (which is not under our control) doesn't list our phone number isn't something that we ourselves can fix. In fact we have provided CySEC our phone number and even a chair and desk in our office. You are welcome to come check as well. The address is:
<blockquote>
Kristelina Tower,
12 Arch. Makariou III
Mesa Yeitonia
Limassol, Cyprus
Cyprus CY-4000
</blockquote>

If you'd like to call us and confirm, there are over 50 phone numbers on the website which you can use to call us to set your appointment. You can also use:
<blockquote>
Cyprus (Toll Free) +80 09 4543
Cyprus +357 2223 2365
Cyprus +357 2223 2366
</blockquote>

Also, if you'd like some pictures, please ask. We will be happy to provide.

Sincerely, ] (]) 22:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

BDB Jack, two questions: (a). Are any other Binary Options company facing action by the CTFC and SEC?

(b). Is it true that the starting and expiring price of the binary options do not match the actual price of the asset, but are instead chosen by SpotOption and how big is this difference? If this is the case, are your customers really predicting the change in price of the asset; or are they predicting what price SpotOption will decide it will be? If this is true how are people really predicting the genuine price of the asset and does it not just become gambling?

I am referring to the SpotOption contract which discussed previously on the talk page and mentioned in the article.] (]) 08:28, 15 May <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>2014 (UTC)

:I think much of this discussion should be had either at the AFD (where pertinent), user talk pages, or off-Misplaced Pages. Even if BDBJack did answer those questions (and you may be leading the witness slightly), self-sourced answers are not really ideal. Is this actually leading up to any improvements to the page? ] (]) 10:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

== Major makeover request ==

{{Edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}

<s>Hi again, seeing that this page is somewhat very conflictive i've been working on an overall revamp of the make. I thought I would post the petition here before confirming this account and changing it myself. You can see my work on my sandbox here . Thanks :) ] (]) 16:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)</s>

:Please do not turn this into a "spot the difference" competition - changes to the article should be incremental and discussed and agreed, or we are likely to have a Ping-Pong match where the entire article is pasted and reverted and pasted again. ] (]) 16:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
::I have closed the {{tl|edit semi-protected}} request as the comment above indicates there is no consensus for the request at this time. I did this as a housekeeping action only; I have no comment one way or the other on the merits of the request. &mdash;<span style="color:#808080">]</span><sup><span style="color:#008080">]</span></sup> 19:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
<s>:::I completely understand the comments. I will try then to apply the changes section by section on the page itself so we will get a better result afterwards.] (]) 07:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)</s>

:This proposed new version is a very obvious whitewash. What's your connection with BdB? ] (]) 12:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

::Agreed. It contains a big chunk of material on the theory of binary options, the Black-Scholes model (which really doesn't apply on the time scale of minutes where Banc de Binary operates), and other filler which pushes the bad news about Banc de Binary far down in the article. Also, this is from an editor with one day of editing history, which, given the history of the article, suggests a sockpuppet. --] (]) 19:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I have come. This subject shall be saved. Continue discussion. ] (]) 20:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Note on Jimbo's talk page regarding paid editing for this article. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

*Saw this article mentioned on the aforemention Wales talk page. In examining this article, which is currently protected at the present time, it does stand out that it is largely negative. However, that appears to reflect the reliable sourcing. The only thing at all questionable is the Better Business Bureau rating, but I see from past noticeboard discussions that (a bit surprisingly) BBB ratings are allowed. ] (]) 18:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
* This article is the poster child as to why paid editing fails horribly sometimes. Whitewashed article is created, then is fixed by other editors. When it is realised that the article is going to be negative towards the company (because that's what the majority of reliable sources say), said paid editors and their paymasters try to delete it. Unlucky. Black <s>]</s> kite ] 18:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

::Somebody suggested that the US regulatory section is all primary sources. should fix that problem and should be placed as a ref immediately after the first line of the second paragraph in that section. Ref only formatted as<ref name=FT>{{cite news|last1=Meyer|first1=Gregory|last2=Massoudi|first2=Arash|title=US regulators sue binary options broker|url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f507568e-ced9-11e2-8e16-00144feab7de.html#axzz33htcsGvs|accessdate=4 June 2014|publisher=Financial Times|date=6 June 2013}}</ref>
{{reflist}}

::I'd also suggest removing the awards section. These are subpar awards from subpar sources, the type that anybody can buy if they want to. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 21:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

==TIME to choose a version==
{{tl|edit request|D}}
Admin, please read ] for replacing the current version with Okteriel's draft, and perform the replacement the moment that community consensus demonstrates the need. BLP and V require immediate attention. ] (]) 12:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC) The first request was declined, so it appears necessary to start listing further article problems in detail rather than handle this all at one go. Trusting your patience. ] (]) 13:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It's actually simple. Mr Oren Laurent has expressed that too much policy noncompliance has been going on here and that it needs to cease just as certainly as it would die out if it were slander; and he has stated that he greatly desires the community to reach consensus about its disposition. Okteriel has posted three drafts for community consideration. The community should choose a draft promptly and wisely and all encouragement to this effect should be applied. ] (]) 12:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

===Okteriel's summary of current consensus===
*'' (Peluchon)'': Contains lots of binary options data. Supported by 1: Peluchon (now judged a banned sock).
*'' (Okteriel) ]'': Contains only text found in both other drafts. Supported by 1: Okteriel (possible COI disclosed above).
*'' (HistorianofRecenttimes)'': Contains four identities in lead and much questionable. Supported by 1: HistorianofRecenttimes (judged a SPA).
Result: Nobody further chose to affirm any of these three drafts; instead, Okteriel's version has merged into the current version, and there is growing consensus for the current version. This supports my theory that much of the editing just before the protection was not about drafts that anybody wanted to defend, it was merely apathy bias. ] (]) 04:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

===Housekeeping detail===
<small>It looks like in his wisdom ] (q.v.) played a trick on us all. Instead of posting all three drafts himself, he somehow influenced Jim1138 to post the third draft instead, and he made it look like Jim1138 was merely being rude to a newcomer who was in the middle of self-reverting discussion drafts without an "under construction" tag, who also stated intent to discuss it at talk. Then it looks like because of an "edit conflict" Okteriel instantly decided to change strategy sarcastically and post his own version again (the second of three drafts) in lieu of posting the third draft, and acting smarmily as if it were also the draft of HistorianofRecenttimes but only "slightly edited". But of course he did it in such a way and with such an edit summary that it looks like he merely cut and pasted the "wrong" draft when it came to the third one. (This is all the funnier because he had me fooled too because when I made the third posting I totally thought it was the "right" third draft and that I had confirmed it, but he somehow clouded my judgment to make me think that when he was really reposting the second draft.) This kind of wisdom often befuddles me but I rationalize that his point must have been that "Historian"'s draft is so obviously a problem that cutting it completely back to Okteriel's draft is only minor. At any rate this is really all minor, but very interesting, background. ] (]) 12:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)</small>

===Community comment===
*'''(Nominator:) Strongly support Okteriel.''' I wish I could speak neutrally about these. Peluchon's is an unsourced whitewash that is really an attempt to merge ] here. Okteriel's is a sample of showing only the text that everybody agrees on and is clearly not meant to be his own work or bold draft. I will userfy it and work on what it should look like in full wiki style. Historian's is a SPA reliance on wobbly and invalid sources. Historian's also has one really giant unusual problem: it claims four entities are all the same entity via "also known as" when BDBJack credibly states, two months ago and without any responsive answer to his disclosed COI edit request, that these are four related corporations with individual charters that cannot legally be called "also known as". ''As long as we can't even agree what entity this topic is about, the current draft '''must''' be changed.''

:There is evidence of all kinds of other BLP and V disputes, which were only temporarily settled by silence and nobody taking action. I am breaking the silence. I will list disputes in separate sections as I find them. Now normally I understand that protected articles in such a hostility should be stubbed so that the "ball" is taken away from all the editors at the same time. It appears Okteriel wants a compromise where only the disputed text is stubbed out, but if there is any community support for a total stub that can be added to the options above as soon as someone writes up a draft of one.

:As long as the drafts are disputed, policy requires that Historian's draft must not be the one protected and Okteriel's draft should be placed. Thank you. ] (]) 12:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I have declined your edit request. A version ''does not'' have to be chosen. Once the article comes off of full protection, regular editors (''not'' ]) can work on the current text. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 12:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC) <small>By the way, referring to yourself in the third person is rather odd. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 12:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)</small>
::::<small>I thought so too, I think I'm cleared to stop doing so now. ] (]) 13:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)</small>
:(ec) Thank you for being a first responder, Neil, yes, it is not necessary for the community to choose a draft, as it could simply decline to perform its duty. But someone will do the community's duty. And even if I were an SPA I could request the removal of unsourced misleading information such as the identity of the corporations in the lead. I don't want to be accused of being disruptive if I need to go sentence by sentence; I thought it was obvious that if the article has been so badly managed that we don't even know what corps are or are not the subject, it needs a cutback. I am preparing to make a list of issues for separate discussion. But I hope you can see that the present version has also been created by a SPA and the present bias does need rapid response. I am available for more discussion, as I don't see why your statements rebut in any way the presumption toward V and BLP enforcement. At any rate I came back to change the template to "edit protected" but that only applies for noncontroversy and right now you and I can handle a D of a BRD cycle. Before we change the template again, I hope you can continue because my questions are not answered and dialogue is appropriate. ] (]) 13:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC) Oh, and, while you declined the request, do you "support Historian", or "abstain", please? I would hope you would not support linking corporations as AKA's when there is no source for it but there is a credible and aging edit request to the contrary? ] (]) 13:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
::I don't support your entire proposition. What you should do is start new sections detailing '''specific''' changes to the current version (i.e., change "x" to "y", remove "z", add "w") and get consensus for each change before making a formal edit requests. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 13:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Great. I hope you can stay with me. But there's only one problem with your suggestion: BDBJack has already made exactly such a section two months ago, at the top of this page, and has gotten no answer. In keeping with your suggestion, and, under BRD, could you comment on his proposed change please? ] (]) 13:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
::::Okteriel, could you please explain why your preferred version does not mention BDB's legal troubles in the US in the "regulation" section, despite the existence of reliable third-party sources of which you were well aware? Citing their own press release in the "awards" section instead is not an appropriate substitute. ] (]) 13:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::Agree with your last sentence in the long term. I hurried to post boldly only consensus text (not my preferred draft), before I research contested text. I skipped US section header because the header itself was not agreed. I didn't mention "legal troubles" because that is biased language IIRC; there is some consensus in that all versions contain the BDB statement, but there is not agreement on how the SEC side should be stated, and, no, in my rush I didn't verify the RS there or determine if they were correctly represented. Remember I only had 4 minutes before I was welcomed. ] (]) 18:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
::::BDBJack did get responses resulting in "no consensus". It didn't help he had a massive ]. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 13:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::I don't think his COI is the issue, and someone saying "no consensus" but nobody closing the request is not a "result". But what is the issue? If the problem is that nobody can deny BDBJack but nobody wants to help him, that is an apathy bias (not an argument), which somebody should boldly step in and address.
:::::Let's put it in policy terms. BDBJack has a that authoritatively amends the article's CFTC source. The article lead is clearly wrong. The identity of a corporation is an open-and-shut legal matter. Even if I had COI, it would not prevent me from properly deleting the incorrect clause, which was part of my editing, because the V case is so clear. How could either of you say the clause should be retained just because nobody wants to do it? Shouldn't I renew the "edit protected" template and appeal to an admin?
To Okteriel, please read ] closely. May I ask if you are a paid editor? Since you say that the business owner says that we must do something, it seems that way. Also, are you familiar with the SEC injunction ruled on in the Las Vegas court? If you are just trying to place an advert onto Misplaced Pages, please don't waste our time - it is simply against the rules. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 14:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:Of course you may ask the ($10,000) question (see Coretheapple below); I'm glad it was you who asked, Smallbones. I am preparing an answer to appear on ]. For the immediate nonce, all editors must take what I did disclose in good faith and must consider my edits on their merits. I'm particularly glad that I've brought community to start fixing this failed article. Like I said I haven't had time to know the exact status of the court cases, I usually research any court case more thoroughly before rendering my own judgment on it. ] (]) 18:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
On Jimbo's talk page it was revealed that editors were being actively solicited for this article, specifically to engage in precisely the reversion to a whitewashed version being proposed here, and that a payment of the five figures was offered. ("the ad was to rewrite Banc De Binary with provided text (an older version of the page)") If you (Okteriel) are that person, you need to disclose it. ] (]) 14:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:I never proposed whitewash (i.e., Peluchon's draft). I proposed cutback or stub as per ], which is close to a perfect fit; BLP applies on a sliding scale to small corps, and in this case it was decided that the CEO is a nonnotable redirect, so anything that reflects badly on the principals should be treated similarly to BLP to some degree. Only good sourced balanced data should appear. I think the rest of your question should probably be referred to my talk also. As near as I can tell, all talk onwiki about five figures is rumormongering and fails V (insofar as it applies to project space). (It just occurred to me, maybe Mr Laurent doesn't have the money but he can certainly string out a cheap publicity stunt without it. Anyway there are many explanations and no hard facts.) Deferring to a longer answer later, I think ] applies. Tell me, am I editing constructively or not by asking that the article's subject ''be rightly legally identified according to authoritative sources''? (I will be happy to add more other constructive edits to my edit history but I don't know how that would help much.) Sure we can talk court cases, after we know ''what corporation(s) the court case is about''.
:'''Will anyone agree''' with me that the clause that CFTC corrected last month can now be corrected by us this month? C'mon, that's easy. ] (]) 18:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks to Black Kite's prompt action, we have had harmonious editing club today and answered both that question just above and all the others, and the result looks like a subset of any of the three versions above. Congratulations. I have redirected my current preference above to the current article. I consider any of today's drafts from 03:33 to 04:33 to be an acceptable baseline. Next, improvement, through expansion, through consensus placements. ] (]) 04:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

==BLP violations==
It's a BLPTALK violation if someone says something that makes a corporate principal look stupid or criminal without sourcing. Pretty simple. As above, for small corporations, especially when the CEO redirects to the corp, there's almost all the latitude of full BLP. I'm going to strike through (but not delete) some of the most egregious violations of this application. Please feel free to differ and discuss. ] (]) 19:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:NeilN has reverted most of my second set of these strikethroughs and tags. I have asked why on his talk but he may be distracted trying to argue that this article is outside the very clear scope of ]. I am not continuing to tag and strike at this time, but I might later if there is no reason not to. I think to continue I'd at least want a BRD on this page before I dismissed his edit summary ("guff") and tried again. BLPTALK definitely applies, and ] says that very harmful or absurd claims should not be posted uncited even on the talk page. ] (]) 21:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
::NeilN has activity-lapsed without answering this question, and his attempted answers to my other questions all have the same flatness. I don't believe an editor should be hamstrung by nonanswers. What I'll do is try the talk archive instead, which has the very same BLP problems, starting with Historian's first talk edit. If anyone objects to that then we can do a new BRD relating to striking ] violations on that page. ] (]) 22:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:::To repeat what I said on my talk page, "...as a ] who has a ] and is grabbing at anything you can find , you should be staying far, far away from tampering with other people's comments." Ask another experienced and uninvolved editor to have a look if you're that concerned. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 23:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
::::I'd love to, thanks. But don't you think you should back up your charges against me with facts? I am trying to keep from SPA (the last few hours probably excepted) and I have provided a disclosure and am following COI rules just as if I had COI. I don't know why you would bring these charges here when you're the one restoring outright BLP violations, c'mon, one user calls another user a criminal to his face in the talk archive and you ''restore the comment''?! Can you help me understand? I am certainly getting assistance. ] (]) 23:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

==Rescue the article!==

{{edit protected|answered=yes}}
Please add {{tl|WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron}} and {{tl|underconstruction}} to the top of the page. Since it is now an ] again (not to mention poorly written), it qualifies for WikiProject attention; and the way in which the protection was applied itself is proof that the article is in flux and should not be adverted as a consensus draft. (By the way, I agree with the protection.) This is straightforward and it is necessary that the V and BLP issues be vetted by additional contributors (or by any contributors who know of them but are not answering them). ] (]) 19:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:Oppose both tags as improper usage. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:''' please establish a ] for this alteration before using the {{tlx|edit protected}} template.<!-- Template:EP --> Apparently there isn't a consensus here yet. Please establish one before reactivating this request per ]. Thank you. — <span class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125;</span> <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 19:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
::I tagged the talk page. NeilN, you may not know about this WikiProject, which specializes in "Misplaced Pages articles that are perceived as actually being notable that are going through Articles for deletion (AfD), which may:
*Need references
*Be written poorly
*Lack information readily available
*Need cleaning up."
So how is that improper please? ] (]) 20:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:Because use of that tag is disingenuous. There's not one vote to delete in the AFD discussion besides the nominator's. You just posted there indicating it is a ]. The article doesn't need rescuing from deletion. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
::The project is not about rescue from deletion alone. Read it again please. ] (]) 20:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:::] seems pretty clear to me. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
::::That's what I quoted. How can we be talking about the exact same words and still disagreeing? This is perceived as notable, is going through AfD, needs references, is written poorly, probably lacks available information (haven't gone through that one yet), and needs cleanup. ] (]) 21:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::Again, disingenuous. The ARS improves articles to save them from deletion. There is no danger of deletion here. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 23:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::Why so hard? Why so opposed to most everything, with I grant one exception so far? You're saying that they can't even be asked to improve the article past the point of nondeletion?! ] (]) 23:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

==Cross-reference==
Stalkers of this page may be interested in fixing a "whitewash" that happened to ] last month. The near-perfect 8-year binary-options SPA IP not only outed himself, but also deleted all references, two names of principals, and the word "bet"! Who wants to focus their energy on fixing that? Then maybe we can get around to consensus on this article instead of avoiding it. ] (]) 22:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:Make that two exceptions (see previous section). Thank you for reverting ], which does look like an improvement. It's all the more amazing, truly astounding, incredible, that you can't even admit the CFTC said BDB Ltd is not BDB Svcs Ltd and that Misplaced Pages should be changed because it says the opposite. Why so quick to fix Nadex and pushing so hard against even agreeing to ''the very first fact of this article'', the subject's identity? What gives? ] (]) 23:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
::It'd be a lot easier to focus on content if you stopped doing time-wasting stuff like proposing invalid tags and refactoring comments. Stop doing that and give other editors a chance to look at content issues (a day or so) and see what happens. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 23:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

:::Also, fixing minor factual details would be easier if you didn't combine the relevant proposals with massive whitewashing. That tends to make editors wary to accept ''any'' of your requests. ] (]) 23:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
::::Please take your time! But, both these comments are "stale", I already stopped the tagging, although I will delete another BLPVIO if I see one; and, although Huon continues to misread my bold discussion drafts as the last word rather than a BRD, Huon's comment refers to probably nothing in the last 48 hours. Finally, the method of giving editors a chance to look ''has not worked to solve the first fact in this article'', the company name and identity. I'll repeat this again for Huon. the CFTC amends the incorrect CFTC source that appears in the article. It used to think BDB Ltd and BDB Svcs Ltd and the rest were the same, now it recognizes they're legally different corporations. But of all the talk activity, ''not one person'' is able to admit that ''we still haven't agreed on even what corporation(s) this article is about in its lead sentence''! So I'm running with what can be done while this incredible silence continues at the same time as the deafening opposition to my proposals. ] (]) 00:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::Banc De Binary, Ltd. and BDB Services Ltd. may be legally distinct, but they're extremely closely associated with each other, they share the bancdebinary.com domain, they both make use of the Banc De Binary brand in different markets. In fact, let's check terms of use: while This to me says that, if anything, Banc De Binary is the Seychelles-owned part of the group companies, not the Cyprus-owned. So the way to fix the article would be to remove the Cyprus-owned company, which is not Banc De Binary, from this article and to instead focus on what calls itself Banc de Binary, the Seychelles-owned company, right? Reliable third-party sources seem to focus on the Seychelles-owned company anyway. ] (]) 00:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for joining the issue. It looked like you just said "Banc De Binary Ltd., Cyprus ... to me says that, if anything, Banc De Binary is the Seychelles-owned part." How'd you switch the two locations? Is it only because it said earlier that "BDB is owned by BDB Svcs Ltd Seychelles"? But, BDB the brand is also owned by BDB Ltd Cyprus. I have no problem with discussing something responsive like "BDB is a group of related BO companies" or such, with the details later. But I have seen nothing such as you allude, that Seychelles would be relevant to the lead. I'll be happy to look. Does that mean we can use "edit protected" to delete the errant clause now due to its falsity and work on the revision? I promise I won't stall! ] (]) 01:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::::The Cyprus company owns something called Eu.bancdebinary.com, but, quote, "". That's unambiguous, isn't it? Banc De Binary, whether or not it's the same as Banc De Binary, Ltd., is owned by the Seychelles-based company. The CFTC is suing both companies anyway, and the alleges: ''Defendants BdB Ltd., ETBO, BO Systems, and BDB Services are affiliates of each other, do business as "Banc de Binary", and, during the Relevant Period, shared common ownership and operated as a common enterprise .'' Despite your claims to the contrary, the CFTC does not acknowledge that these are distinct enterprises. If we do ''not'' take the CFTC's position that these companies basically are all the same enterprise, the notable one is the one which did the business in the US which got them sued, and I doubt that was Cyprus-run Eu.bancdebinary.com. ] (]) 02:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Sorry I missed this. I didn't claim contrarily that these are distinct enterprises, but that they are distinct corporations. But this article is about the enterprise, the four corps and their websites. I think it's hardly sporting to merge them when it can get you to Seychelles and then to separate them once you've got there. They all four together apparently did the business in the US, I hear tell. Maybe a Cyprus corp is owned by a Seychelles corp, which is owned by its stockholders (owned by ...), but so far we're building an agreement about other things, viz., that this is about "BDB" the enterprise, and that FKA and AKA do not apply among affiliate corporations. Earlier drafts had all four properly identified rather than treated as '''synonyms''', and that will be restored, I trust. At any rate, no matter how intractable the logic, there is a good baseline right now and we should build on it. ] (]) 05:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

==Award section==
None of those awards seem notable. I look at the websites, and this isn't some major event. Are any of these awards notable enough to get coverage in any independent reliable sources? I say delete them all. ] 23:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:I would accept consensus for either keep or toss on that. However, they were accepted by the consensus just before the protection. If you poke around you'll see more interesting things than that. ] (]) 23:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
::* <b>Delete awards</b> per ] as one of many areas that uses low-quality sources and requires cleanup. I'll take it out as soon as the article is un-protected. ] (]) 17:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

== Oren Shabat Laurent ==

Since both the updated CFTC information http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6923-14 and the ] piece http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f507568e-ced9-11e2-8e16-00144feab7de.html correctly identify the chief exec and controlling person of the whole set of related BDB shell companies as Oren Shabat Cohen, a citizen of the U.S. & Israel, can we replace his self-concoted nom de plume Oren Laurent, or perhaps render it as Oren Shabat Cohen aka Oren Laurent? thx ] (]) 09:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

:The FT simply reproduces what the CFTC says, and court documents such as those are explicitly not appropriate sources for ]. While Banc De Binary is not a living person, Laurent certainly is. ] (]) 10:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

:: I am not proposing to use it as a ], merely to correct the info box. thx ] (]) 10:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

:::You're proposing to add biographical information about a living person, namely an alias. ] (]) 10:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
::::'''' Here an IP, self-ID'd as Oren Laurent in history, points out that not only did we fail to disambiguate the corporations (all the way back in October), we also failed to disambiguate the employees! Cohen is an employee of Laurent with the same first name and ] middle name. I've seen Cohen identified as an employee on one of BDB's postings on a third-party site. The whole idea was started by a then-non-autoconfirmed SPA (who continued to edit SPA here ever since), who, at the same time, accused every technical contact on every BDB whois (e.g., Jack Laine) as being another alias of Laurent! I am under the impression that all guvdocs misidentifying Cohen as Laurent have also been amended, just like the corporate dab was last month.
::::Not only that, one of the IP's links is paywalled, and the other correctly says "Oren Shabat Laurent", not Cohen, contrary to IP claim. According to Hebrew naming practices, "Shabat" is an ] surname, which can be used diversely as either a middle name or a surname in our nomenclature. "Oren Shabat" is a pretty common pairing too, and, although the confusion of having 2/3 of a name match between two employees is understandable, nobody has taken the time to research before commenting, until now. Let the Cohen go home now. ] (]) 01:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

==Bold edits==
Now that the article is un-protected, I will make some bold edits to cleanup junk sources - both those that are used for promotional material and those for critical commentary. As is always the case when making major cuts, there will probably be some material that needs to be restored. And as is always the case where this many editors are involved and have strong opinions any edits to the page will result in editors protesting them. My interest is mostly in cleaning up junk sources, which is a major portion of my contributions to Misplaced Pages. I hope other editors will continue a productive conversation about <i>the article, based on reliable secondary sources</i>, though I probably won't get involved in the nitty gritty. I prefer not to get involved in contentious pages where editors are arguing unproductively, but I do want to cleanup the junk sources. ] (]) 17:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


== Banc De Binary's corporate structure. ==
:One thing the article still needs is someone that knows who the trade press is for this kind of company. There are some articles on them in the Financial Times, but mostly just quotes and their commentary on the markets. I also found a trade news site called Binary Tribune, but I am unsure about their reliability - it has published some very promotional material on the company that reads like a press release. Finally, the outcome of the lawsuit needs a much better source than the statement on their website, which may or may not accurately represent things (they say voluntarily, but its possible an independent source will posture it differently). ] (]) 19:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


Since the BDB team is very concerned with their corporate structure being described correctly, here is the text from a court order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada:
:I've undone one of your bold edits as the fact the company appears on those lists in uncontroversial and no analysis in involved. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
: ''Defendant Banc de Binary is a Cypriot corporation with a principal place of business on Cyprus’southern shore, in Limassol. (Summons (#58-1) at 1). It is affiliated with three other corporations, Defendants ET Binary Options Ltd., BO Systems, Ltd., and BDB Services, Ltd. (Second. Amend. Compl. (#58) at ¶¶ 4). Although Banc de Binary’s affiliates are incorporated in Israel and the Republic of Seychelles, the companies collectively do business as “Banc de Binary.” (Id . at ¶¶ 4, 13–15).


: ''Banc de Binary was founded in 2010 by Defendant Oren Shabat Laurent, a twenty-nine year old American and Israeli citizen who lives on the outskirts of Tel Aviv. (Id. at ¶ 16); (Pl.’s Serv. Mot. (#43-1) at 3:10–11). He owns fifty percent of Banc de Binary, and is also the sole owner or fifty percent shareholder of ET Binary Options Ltd., BO Systems, Ltd., and BDB Services, Ltd. (Second. Amend. Compl. (#58) at ¶¶ 5, 18, 19, 31). ''
:{{reply|CorporateM}} Unfortunately, due to the business model of most of the websites and news sources related to the Binary Options industry, i believe that it will be hard to find articles that are not promotional in nature. Being that Binary Options are (relatively) new to the financial industry, and have been regulated for a very short time, I think it will be hard to find unbiased articles on the subject. However, I will endeavour to provide a list of sites / newspapers etc. which ( at least in my opinion ) are relatively unbaised or at least do not have any direct connection with the subject of the article (Banc De Binary). ] (]) 19:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
:Agree with CorporateM's analysis of the sources NeilN reinserted, they are not the quality of the sources CorporateM dug up. I'm generally for inclusion but the first phase needs to be the affirmation of the cutback, as I recommended, and as CorporateM provided the first rational incarnation of, in just two hours. After initial consensus and stability, then patient growth. Reviewing actively. ] (]) 22:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


Source: That's a court order by a judge, not a filing. It reflects what the SEC, the CFTC, and the Federal courts were able to determine. If any of that was wrong, Banc De Binary had a chance to correct it before that order was issued. So that can be treated as a reliable source. I suggest updating the article to match. Thanks. --] (]) 20:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
::Press releases should almost never be used and things like a list from the SEC needs to be interpreted by secondary sources, not because we are not intelligent enough to understand them, but because secondary sources establish the information's significance and provide context. A while back I was working on an article about a website that sold illegal drugs online. The government had a dim view on it, but secondary sources had a scoffing attitude towards the government's attempt at catching them. I'm not saying that's the case here, but that reliable secondary sources often differ greatly from the government's views.


:That lucid, plain-language document is clearly usable. It also is important in understanding BDB's motivation to dominate this article, its talk page and allied Misplaced Pages processes. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
::] said he or she was going to look up newspapers and generally for a marginally notable company like this, newspaper articles by professional journalists (not op-eds, press release re-writes, bylines, etc.) are probably going to be the best available sources. I suggest we see what they find. ] (]) 22:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


::You can probably expect it to be disputed on the grounds that the order is a primary source, or at least not sufficiently independent. BDB's answer to the Second Amended Complaint, while not openly contesting ¶ 4 of the SAC (the significant one for the purposes of this article), seems to anticipate making an issue of linking the corporations up. I'm skimming the docket sheet for anything useable, but I doubt there'll be much of anything. If possible, it might be best to ''attribute'' the claim that they're all the same company, such as "which the United States SEC has argued includes X, Y and Z". I know that specific wording sucks, but I think that might be better. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 20:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Oh, I noticed there are some sources in the German and French versions of this article in other languages that may be useful. I have not looked at them. 22:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Regards, Mendaliv. The court has stated everything correctly (except the relatively immaterial founding date), as this order comes after we had the CFTC amend its incorrect information. This document is also the sister of the document we recommended when ] first requested the edit () that Nagle and Figureofnine now espouse, and so there is no problem with the source; there is also a press release from CFTC linked ] that does the job as well. Banc De Binary is a common enterprise or group of the four corporations (so it is not formerly known as or also known as any of them), but Banc De Binary, Ltd., is one of the four corporations; and it is important not to misconstrue the court on that point, as it does not say they are the same company or entity, but the same enterprise or group. My edit request appears ] and my proposed extended in-text description appears within the ] collapsed box. ] (]) 21:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


::::Okay, so the "former" is probably incorrect, though it leads me to another question. Is the article is about the corporate entity known as Banc De Binary (organized in Cyprus), or about the collective enterprise that the Cypriot corporation—as well as the Israeli and Seychellois organizations—do business as? —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 21:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
::::There have been some blatant changes made recently to whitewash Banc de Binary. For example, "The company has been charged with several offences by the CTFC and SEC, and trading with US customers has been frozen following an injunction on 1 August 2013" (cited to the SEC) has become "According to Banc de Binary website, it has voluntarily stopped offering its services to US residents."(cited to the Banc de Binary site). This has to be undone. Other deletions included negative coverage from the Wall Street Journal. I suggest we go back to the last edit before CorporateM became involved and go forward from there. ] (]) 00:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


:::::This is not especially complicated nor controversial. Brokerages frequently have related enterprises and they function as one entity, with different corporations in different jurisdictions. "Formerly" in the lead is not correct. I don't know why this was not done, but it appears to be a product of the rather poor editing atmosphere in this article, for which I regret the company has no one to blame but itself. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::The Wall Street Journal has not been removed. The SEC's dispute with the company is documented in reliable secondary sources and does not need primary sources to add excessive weight and commentary. It is not whitewashed, it is simply trimmed of low-quality sources and now focuses on what's been said in reliable secondary sources, which is how proper articles are written. ] (]) 00:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::What I'm rather skeptical about is the last line: "In February 2013, Banc De Binary registered with the Financial Services Authority in the United Kingdom." The Financial Times article given as a source strongly implies that Banc De Binary is ''not'' under the "regulatory scrutiny" of the FSA and that the FSA keeps a list of companies doing business in the UK without being regulated there - that seems to be what Banc De Binary is doing. Now telling the FSA that BDB is doing business or erecting a branch in the UK may count as "registering", but we should not give the impression that FSA is ''regulating'' BDB. See for comparison what has to say about BDB. ] (]) 00:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::Hi, Nagle, yes, we definitely need a baseline to work from. But, the version CorporateM started with was much worse, imnsho. I affirmed that both lawsuit sides need to appear; well, they do appear, but the 3 sentences for SEC/CFTC are a bit weak and the 1 BDB is poor. One punchy sentence for each should do it for a baseline, then we can talk nuance. The idea is to get consensus about what's there first, then we can use the calmer BRD or talk-proposal methods to continue. Also I hope we're done with the word "whitewash" because I've heard too many people use it. I'm not sure the SEC can rightly claim "frozen" when the act was the result of negotiation and so there was ''nothing to freeze''. ] (]) 01:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::Hi, Huon, I changed that line before reading yours. FSA and FT are not coming up for me. The history had a longer sentence that was more specific from which I quoted, with the FSA saying, "may be subject to limited regulation by the" FCA, and I assumed it correctly reflected the FSA (now basically FCA) when it was placed. "May be" didn't fit in the sentence, but I don't think it implied "need not be considered as". I don't understand why we shouldn't give the impression unless you think my version doesn't make the distinction between full and limited regulation clear. Good enough? ] (]) 01:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::Here's some investigative reporting by the financial side of the London Daily Mail.. Their reporter checked with the FCA (successor to the FCA): "... debt-ridden Cyprus welcomed it and issued a licence last January. This allowed Banc de Binary to ‘passport’ itself under EU rules into almost every other member country without proper vetting. It now claims to have headquarters in Limassol, as well as offices in King Street in the City of London. Because it has never been satisfactorily vetted by the FCA, customers who fall out with Banc de Binary cannot complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service. And if the company were to collapse, investors could not claim from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme." That should deal with the "regulated by the FCA" issue.
::::::The Daily Mail article goes further. The article is about someone who wrote the newspaper with the claim that "I am a victim of Banc de Binary, a private bank in New York which took $25,000 (about £16,000) out of my Lloyds TSB account without my knowledge or authority." After investigating, the reporter is able to get the money back. He catches Banc de Binary representatives in some clearly false statements. So we now have a reliable secondary source for Banc de Binary being a sketchy operation in the UK, as well as operating illegally in the US. Let's get that into the article. I'm going out to a movie. ] (]) 02:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
===convenience break===
Besides a I still don't have a good answer from ] on why we can't use primary sources ''judiciously'' per ] - "A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." --] <sup>'']''</sup> 02:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


:::::This court order is worth reading in full, for those interested. There is reference to the CEO fearing criminal prosecution on p. 4. In the footnote on p. 11, it states that the company's principal place of business is Cyprus. Mendaliv, while this is indisputably a primary source, it contains much of a factual nature that does not require interpretation, so I think passes the test in ]. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 22:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
:That is also not true; I've explained several times that secondary sources are needed to establish the information's significance and its context/NPOV. Primary sources might be usable for non-controversial information like a foundation date, revenues, number of offices, corporate structure - these are things where WEIGHT and NPOV are irrelevant. Primary sources may be used wherever they do not violate some other policy, but they usually do.


:: This is an excellent source. It is clearly independent of the subject, clearly reliable, and as an impartial summary of primary sources, it's equally clearly a secondary source ''for the stated facts'' - it's a primary source for the text of the order, but a secondary source for the facts in the Findings Of Fact. If this does not meet ] then it is hard to see what would. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
:It is not true that a weak source may be used with attribution as verifying the opinion of the author of the source - if their opinions were significant, they would be included in secondary sources. As stated previously, for a marginally notable company like this, the only good sourcing available will be newspapers and there are not many of those at that. ] (]) 02:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Even for the aspects of the case for which this holding might be a secondary source, I do not believe we can call it reliable. Judicial opinions have little if any editorial (as opposed to judicial) oversight, and in my experience sections on background facts are highly prone to containing nonprejudicial errors (i.e., mistakes with the details that don't affect the outcome of the case). This can be really simple stuff... in writing ], for instance, the multiple judicial opinions in that case differed significantly in the dimensions of the ships, the amount of contaminant that was spilled, and in the treatment of other simple facts... and when compared to the NTSB accident report, they all had ''some'' nonprejudicial errors. Indeed, I would argue that the facts not essential to the holding in the instant order should be considered ''less'' reliable. In short, there are a lot of problems with using judicial opinions as sources for anything but quotations and textually attributed statements. While I think the statement in the order is probably right, and probably should be included in the article, I just want to make clear that judicial opinions need to be used ''very'' carefully. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 03:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
::'It appears on the US Securities and Exchange Commission's "List of Unregistered Soliciting Entities That Have Been the Subject of Investor Complaints".' Non-controversial statement of fact. Please tell me what policy this content is violating. And why you left "According to Banc de Binary website, it has voluntarily stopped offering its services to US residents." in as it also has primary source with no secondary source to establish significance/truth. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 03:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
::::Even the BDB team says "The court has stated everything correctly (except the relatively immaterial founding date)". So we should be done here. ] (]) 03:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::Since there seems to be consensus, a '''formal edit request: '''
:::::* Delete from lede ''"formerly known as BO Systems Limited and also known as BDB Services Limited and ET Binary Options Ltd."''
:::::* Add, at beginning of History section,
::::::''Banc de Binary is a ] corporation based in ], ]. It is affiliated with ET Binary Options Ltd., BO Systems, Ltd., and BDB Services, Ltd., incorporated in ] and the ]. The companies collectively do business as “Banc de Binary". Banc de Binary was founded by Oren Shabat Laurent, a 29 year old (as of 2014) American and Israeli citizen who lives on the outskirts of ]. Laurent owns 50% of Banc de Binary, and is also the sole owner or 50% shareholder of ET Binary Options Ltd., BO Systems, Ltd., and BDB Services, Ltd.'' (Cite to )
::::: That follows the source as closely as possible. ] (]) 19:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::{{done}}. I agree there seems to be a consensus, and there has been no objection in three days. Is a reduction in protection now advisable? ~] <small>(])</small> 21:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::By the way, I recall seeing in one of the BDB rep's walls o' text an objection to the lead sentence referring to the company as "Israeli-Cypriot". Should we remove Israeli? ~] <small>(])</small> 23:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Well I notice that the most recent article on the subject in a reliable secondary source referencing the company refers to it as a Cypriot company, and so does the court ruling that has been discussed. So I don't see a problem with that. ] (]) 23:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::::{{done}} as well. ~] <small>(])</small> 15:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks. ] (]) 19:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


== WSJ on BdB ==
:::The primary source from the website is also not acceptable and for similar reasons. I said as much in the edit-summary and explained that again on the Talk page. As I explained previously, it is a placeholder until someone can find a secondary source explaining the outcome of the lawsuit. If none can be found it should also be removed. ] (]) 03:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
{{editprotected|answered=yes}}
::::I find it odd you would keep the company's primary sourced statement in as a "placeholder" but removed (twice) text sourced to various regulatory agencies. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 03:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::We have a reliable secondary source, the Daily Mail, explicitly calling out Banc de Binary for not only having been shut down in the US by the SEC and CTFC, but then lying about it to the Daily Mail reporter: ''"The truth was that it was under investigation by the CFTC for alleged illegal trading, and Banc de Binary later admitted its press release was ‘inaccurate’ and it was not allowed to offer investments in the US. I asked the company’s founder, Oren Laurent, whether this meant deals done through its New York office were unlawful. I also asked him about your complaint that $25,000 was taken without permission. Laurent did not respond, but Banc de Binary’s head of compliance, Lauren O’ Connor, told me: ‘Mr R’s claims do not hold up and do not make sense.’ She did not comment on whether your New York trades were illegal, but she claimed: ‘The company does not provide any services to US clients.’ American authorities say this is untrue."'' That's more than enough to back up strong statements in the article. ] (]) 05:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


See the last 2 paragraphs at ]<sub>(])</sub> 18:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::I agree with John Nagle that the page should be reverted back to Black kite, before CorporateM's whitewashing and also that the protection should be reinstated. The whole page has been whitewashed to the point it's barely recognisable. Is there anything that can be done about 'cash for editing' users like CorporateM and Okteriel, the latter of which left a weird and half-threatening message on my talk? ] (]) 11:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>


:Belongs in the article. ] (]) 18:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::: appears to be a copy/paste of direct testimony from an upset customer named JRR. It's more clear at the very top where it says "JRR:" and the following text is in italics indicating that it's quoted. Even though the italics goes away, the rest of the text is in the first person from the customer's point-of-view. ] (]) 17:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


::Agree. $10K's a bit special compared to the usual army of minimum-wage freelancers. ] (]) 00:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::::The Daily Mail article looks fine to me.
::Agree. This enterprise is hardly notable except for its controversial aspects. --] (]) 02:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Since you've been asked indirectly already, I'll just make the above question from Historian to {{ping|CorporateM}} clear - Are you being paid to edit this article? I've asked the same questionof ] and got a laughably evasive answer. It actually convinced me that he is a well known long time banned editor.{{interrupted|Short answer: I am not banned, please stop. Longer answer below. ] (]) 21:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)}} I'll likely just remove everything he writes from now on, as is allowed under exceptions to the 3RR rule, but 1st I'll ask him: Okteriel, are you a banned editor?


Could we have a short sentence about this in? It seems to have been uncontroversial here. ] (]) 10:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Also ], I might as well ask you too. You seem to have special information on company such as the compensation package for its employees. Your material seems very reasonable and should be included except for ]. Do you have a special relationship with the company, such as former employee, former customer, or competitor? Sorry I have to ask, but this article is becoming a snake-pit. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 18:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
:] '''Not done for now:'''<!-- Template:EP --> {{ping|Pinkbeast}} you need to provide a specific wording, and make sure that wording has consensus, before this can be enacted. Best — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 10:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


::Guess I'll wait for the page protection to run out (also providing other editors with an opportunity to howl in protest). Thanks anyway. ] (]) 13:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Nop, I have no connection to the company at all, I was just amused to see how blatant the fraud was. I won a school history prize when I was 17 so just called myself that name for fun. Bearing in mind it's an online company, you'd have thought that anyone wanting to partake would have been able to use the internet to research Banc de Binary and so discover the company and practically the entire online 'binary options' field is a complete fraud, where the companies decide the start and end price and the unlucky punter almost always loses out as the House sets the odds and final result. I picked up all the info and sources online, and I recognized Ramat Gan in the background in one of their since removed videos, which made me realise it was in Israel, but I sourced that. The US charges are a obvious consequence of having fleeced what would be very vulnerable investors, the kind of whom don't really understand how to use the internet properly, but can still use a credit card. My heart goes out to them and the US charges describe some of the victims who seem on the margins of society. CorporateM is a paid for editor and they admit this on their own page, which gives a list of companies they have worked on as a COI. Can we erase theirs and Okteriel's comments and restore the page to as it was when BlackKite lifted protection yesterday?] (]) 19:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>


:::I propose new section at the bottom, "Paid Editing of Misplaced Pages":
:That's a silly question - you're the one that brought the article to my attention! No, I have not had any communication with the company whatsoever, nor have I even seen the alleged online bribe. ] (]) 20:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
:::In June 2014, an advertisement on a freelance employment Website offered more than $10,000 for "crisis management" of the BdB page on Misplaced Pages.
:::Since there has been no reporting of the previous socks, I don't see that we can get it in. ] (]) 18:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
::::I can't see this as a separate section. Maybe a sentence. ] (]) 18:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


:::::I did ponder that given that I have a princely dozen words... but it seems an odd fit in any other section. ] (]) 18:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
::I think we can accept that both Historian and CorporateM are not being paid to edit here, and should proceed under the usual assumption of goodwill. The other editor mentioned, however, should note that goodwill only can go so far. Banned editors need not apply. To Historian - you likely have pieced together many bits and pieces including material from sources that we might not consider reliable. If the sources do meet ], please do include them. If not feel free to use this page to describe what you've found and your interpretation of the material - but do not liable anybody or otherwise violate ]. BTW I have some experience with this type of article and some professional experience in this area (not of the type you might be thinking of!). It's not unusual for former employees to show up as editors to this type of article. In any case you have very good knowledge of the company.
:::::History? ] (]) 18:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
::To CorpM - as usual, I accept your good faith but not necessarily your judgement - your pretty far off on this one. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 20:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Smallbones, did you get to read ]? I answered your last question as politely as possible. Why are you deleting my comments and charging me very seriously without evidence just for the alleged crime of not getting to your buried question fast enough, or not believing you'd really follow through? ''I am not banned.'' I am not Morning277; I am not MooshiePorkFace; I am not any banned editor on the list personally, linkably, categorically, uncategorically, or any other way; I am not Wiki-PR; with the same vehemence; I think I could say I despise Wiki-PR if it weren't biased to say; Wiki-PR created this chaos; let's fix this chaos. What was the thread about again? Oh, affirm most of the short-draft versions that Historian is warring against. ] (]) 21:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


== Banning COI editors from this talk page ==
== Rewriting First Paragraph ==


''Note: This talk section is limited to volunteer editors only.''<br />
{{request edit|D}}


This talk page is insane. All of the crud introduced by COI editors and responses by volunteers retards the improvement of this article. What's the best way to at least get a respite (6 months?) from the depradations of the COI's? Back to ANI? --] (]) 02:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I would like to see the first paragraph: "Banc De Binary is a binary options trading company headquartered in Cyprus and Israel which was enjoined by a U.S. Federal Court in 2013 from offering securities for sale or acting as a broker-dealer."
:{{ping|Hobbes Goodyear}}, please note the discussion underway at ] ] (]) 03:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


==Removal of names from infobox==
changed to something a little more comprehensible, such as:
I have made an edit to this fully-protected article because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the full-protection dispute.


Per OTRS ticket {{Ticket|2014061810015646}} initiated by Roy Ogen, I have removed his name from the infobox. He no longer works there, and I confirmed this from his own LinkedIn page.
"Banc De Binary is a binary options trading company headquartered in Cyprus and Israel."


In the same edit I removed Sarah Fenwick also, per OTRS ticket {{Ticket|2014061810006129}} initiated by Ms Fenwick. She also says she no longer works there. Her LinkedIn page confirms that this company is a past client of hers. ~] <small>(])</small> 20:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
which removes the redundant information which is already stated in the "Regulation" section.


== About paid editors on this article ==
] (]) 18:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be accurate to include in this article the informations from independent secondary sources (such as , or ) about the consequences of the actions of the Banc De Binary's paid editors on this article? ] (]) 08:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
: The "redundant information" is that they're crooks under US law. ] (]) 19:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


:It was discussed above, in the context of the WSJ article. I see that AJAM and Slate picked up and repeated the WSJ article, with credit, not really adding much. But yes, definitely, worth mentioning. ] (]) 13:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
:: Please support this statement with sources. The fact that they are being sued in a civil court does not make them "crooks". It means that they breached regulation (not a law). This happens on a regular basis with established banks as well as other institutions as well. Would you call Bank of America crooks? Or HSBC? Or other large banks? And using what definition. Can we please reduce the statements to those that can be backed up with facts? ] (]) 19:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


==Proposed edit==
:::I've declined the Request Edit. For small articles like this I prefer a stub-format with no sub-sections. In a stub style, there would be no repetition, but in the current format, the Lead is suppose to summarize the body, so there will be repetition as a result of the summary. Though I prefer a stub-format that would eliminate the redundancy, I don't think it's anything worth arguing about. ] (]) 20:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I intend to remove the sentence which says ''A 2013 investigation by the British Daily Mail newspaper journalist Tony Hetherington alleged that one client had $25,000 stolen from his bank account after signing up with them.'' on the basis this is not what the source says (suggesting original research/synthesis), and that in any case, the Daily Mail is not generally considered a reliable source (per discussions above). If there are any objections or someone would like to provide revised wording and sourcing, please list them below. ] (]) 00:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
: That statement needs work, not deletion. How about this: "Investigations by the British Daily Mail newspaper journalist Tony Hetherington in 2013 and 2014 alleged losses by two clients of Banc de Binary. One client alleged that Banc de Binary had made unauthorized withdrawals from his ] bank account. Lloyds TSB agreed and refunded the client's money. Another Banc de Binary client reported being unable to withdraw funds from Banc de Binary. After being contacted by Hetherington, Banc de Binary refunded the money. ] (]) 04:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
::The Daily Mail isn't generally considered a reliable source, is there another source to supplement or replace the DM which could be used ? BDB also insist they and not Lloyds TSB refunded the money of the first client, is there anything to support that, that you're aware of ? ] (]) 10:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
:::I don't think one can make that kind of sweeping judgment about the Daily Mail. It is indeed used as a source and I have myself. BDB's side of the story is situated within the article and it can be adjusted to reflect that. ] (]) 14:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
::::I feel uncomfortable making statements like this with only one source. I tried and I can't find anything else regarding this particular issue. If this was more than an isolated incident this would have garnered more coverage. I tried looking for mentions of Lloyds TSB and Banc De Binary and found nothing but this story. I found it in several of the Daily Mail subsidiaries, but it was all the same story. I say get rid of it. If we find something more to support the story we can always put it back. ] (]) 15:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, a second source would be optimal. ] (]) 16:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::The Quebec securities regulator also noted the "bonus lock-in" feature that BdB used to avoid returning customer funds. The Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission recently prohibited Cyprus-based binary option dealers from using "bonuses" to lock up customer funds. There are similar complaints about BdB on scam-oriented blog sites.. This was the subject of one of the Daily Mail stories about a customer who could not withdraw funds. So it's clear enough that BdB was locking in customer funds and had to stop doing that. The Quebec securities regulator item is already in the article, and the Daily Mail article could be used as an example of a customer running into the practice the Quebec regulator noted. ] (]) 17:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Since the two are connected, then the customer complaint can be moved to that section but as just that - a complaint, and that BDB denied it. That gives the regulatory statement meaning. However, there would have to be a direct connection between the two. As you can see, there is considerable reluctance to use the tabloid as a source. ] (]) 17:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


Disagree - It's misleading to simply describe The Daily Mail as an unreliable tabloid as this is a well written article which gives adequate weight to the companies response. It doesn't say that Banc de Binary repaid the money. As the money was taken without permission from the account Lloyds TSB were legally obliged to refund it, and they would have taken further steps to find where it had gone. Padillah can do a search for 'Banc de Binary Scam' and they'll find numerous similar things online about Banc de Binary. I'm more uncomfortable about the sudden appearance of Nick announcing this, as it reminds me of CorporateM's also mysterious and sudden appearance to announce Edits. I'd leave it where it is as it is quite fairly stated and previous editors all said it was well sourced.
== Unverifiable Sources ==


When are we going to add the detail about Banc de Binary's attempt to pay someone $10k to edit, which hit the press, into the article. Has Sarah Fenwick really left the company, she still seems to be making ahead of the week video reports for them. Can the company really be described as Cypriot and not Cypriot-Israeli bearing in mind that that we already put a link to a photo on this page of their Israeli HQ and that the various affiliated companies all do the same thing, are simply a way of them allowing to trade in different geographical areas such as the EU or outside the EU. As far as I can see ET Binary Options is still based in the Diamond District in Ramat Gan, Israel and it is this building which we put a link to the photo of, which appears to have the Banc de Binary logo on the outside of, this proving they are based there. ET Binary options are still posting job ads for sales reps on their Facebook wall, showing that this is where the calls are made from. Quite telling that they are looking for people who can speak many different languages, as Banc de Binary's site is in this too.] (]) 01:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
{{request edit|D}}
::Yes, Ms. Fenwick has left. Her company Jazz Arts & Communications Ltd is producing BDB's videos. The latest video confirms that she is presenting and that it is produced by her company. ~] <small>(])</small> 21:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


:A reliable source is one that has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Wellllll Daily Mail continues to do a fairly good job on a very regular basis of assuring that they do not establish such a reputation. -- ] 04:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I would like to have someone either post the contents of references 6 and 7 for review, since they are hidden behind a "subscription" mechanism which does not allow for review.
::There is a ''lot'' of Daily Mail utilized as sources in various articles, especially on popular culture. I notice that it was just added as a source to ], for instance. I don't mean to defend this tabloid, but I don't believe there is a blanket ban on use of it. ] (]) 05:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
If this is not possible, I would like to have the statement "The SEC said that Banc De Binary stated in 2012 that half of its 250,000 investors were based in the US. However, the North American Derivatives Exchange is the only such service authorized by the US government to operate in the country." removed as being unverifiable and un-sourced.
:::while there is no blanket ban (yet), there is certainly also no "default reliable" - particularly on potentially controversial content.-- ] 04:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
:{{u|HistorianofRecenttimes}} I understand where you're coming from, but the edit/change is in response to a complaint we have received, and it has merit (if it didn't, I wouldn't be here). The word "stolen" does not appear in the reference source so it cannot appear in the sentence in the article that is sourced to the reference, to have it there is original research or synthesis, which we don't permit. If there's a source which says BdB has stolen money, then add that instead. There have been long standing concerns about the reliability of the Daily Mail source, with extensive discussions at the ] concluding it's generally not to be considered a reliable source (see discussions at ], ], ], ]) which is why I'm asking if there are other sources that could supplement or replace the Daily Mail.
:I'm quite happy to mainly leave this to editors with more experience of the topic and knowledge of source material which can be used, but as it stands, the minimum that needs to be done is the sentence containing the word "stolen" needs to be changed to remove the word stolen and to say something along the lines of "a customer complained that BdB withdrew funds from their account without their authority". As I said earlier, if there is another reliable source that specifically states BdB stole money, then add that reference and don't worry about changing the sentence.
:I don't think I'm telling you all anything you don't already know or understand, but Banc de Binary, as they're now banned, will be channelling complaints through administrators/OTRS volunteers, and they're likely to continue to flag up every part of the article which doesn't say what they would rather it said, specifically parts of the text which doesn't match the references precisely. I'm almost certainly going to be back with some of the other issues that BdB will almost certainly raise with us, so if regular editors could read through the article, double check all the used references still work (i.e no 404s) and still say what they did when they were first used that would be brilliant. If there any potential issues with references supporting a little original research etc, fixing it now would be enormously helpful. ] (]) 11:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
::I agree that "stolen" needs to go, because it's not in the source. Frankly I think it would have been taken out already if the article was unprotected. I've asked for that, as the reason the article was protected was because of edit warring with BDB socks and corporate accounts, and all are now side-banned. Without them breathing down the necks of volunteers, I think that all article issues can now be amicably addressed, including this one. However I do think semiprotection is wise. ] (]) 16:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
:::I'd agree that "stolen" is unwarranted. "Withdrew funds from account without authorization" is more like it. See ] for an explaination of the process. ] (]) 23:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
::::Still no word on the unprotection. It only has until July 3 anyway. ] (]) 00:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
:{{done}}, changed "stolen" to "withdrawal without authorization". It would be easier to alert administrators about these things if the {{tl|editprotected}} tag were used. Fortunately I am monitoring this page.
:I can make consensus-based edits to the protected article, as I have above.
:I can also reduce the protection level to semi if there is a consensus to do that. ~] <small>(])</small> 00:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
::I don't quite think we have consensus yet, but it's a lot closer now than it was a few weeks ago. ]<sup>]]</sup> 01:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Given the history, I'd say drop to semi-protection when full protection runs out on July 3. ] (]) 07:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Or drop it to semi- now. Whether it's unprotected now or in a few days doesn't make much difference I guess. I asked at WP:RPP and was referred to the protecting administrator, who seems off-wiki. ] (]) 12:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Also, I've asked User:HistoryofRecenttimes to voluntarily stand down from the talk page. We don't need partisans from either side breathing down our necks. ] (]) 13:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Something went wrong here. Amatulic's edit in response to this request distorted the passage so as to make it say that the journalist claimed BdB took that money from his own account, rather than from some other anonymous complainant. I've removed the sentence for the time being. ] ] 07:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


:Reading the article, I would rewrite the sentence as: A 2013 investigation by the British ''Daily Mail'' newspaper journalist ] alleged that Banc de Binary withdrew $25,000 from a British customer's bank account without authorization and refused to return the money when challenged.
Links in question:
* http://www.webcitation.org/6L9hopyb5
* http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f507568e-ced9-11e2-8e16-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=intl#axzz33htcsGvs


:Comments? ] (]) 11:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
In any case, Banc De Binary and ] do not offer the same services. Banc De Binary operates as a broker, while NADEX operates as an exchange.


:: The problem with that is that the Daily Mail author isn't even in a position to "assert" or "allege" anything at all. He is only reporting what his anonymous informants claims. The journalist had no way of independently verifying what that customer said; he only had his word for it. While it might be debateable whether the ''Daily Mail'' as such is or isn't a reliable source, the anonymous individual certainly isn't. ] ] 12:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
] (]) 18:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


:::There are now two alleged victims, so I'm leaning toward saying that the Mail reported two customers losing sums deposited there, and that BDB denied wrongdoing. I wouldn't go much beyond that. ] (]) 12:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
: Wall Street Journal links come out from behind the paywall after a while. Here's the full story. This article also documents Banc de Binary lying about their presence in the US: "The SEC complaint said that the Israeli and Cypriot company said on its website at one point that its "entire staff is located in the United States." That should go in the article. ] (]) 19:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


:: I have spent the last 30 minutes waiting for the paywall to drop on the Wall Street Journal article, and unfortunately i have not seen it drop thus far. The only statement I could find worth any mention is " alleging it was illegally offering options to U.S. customers without registering with U.S. regulators." (sic). (please note the word '''alleging'''). ] (]) 19:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC) ::::Ooops. Sorry about mangling that sentence while implementing this edit request. Looks like I left out the key word "client", making it appear like the reporter had lost money. My bad. I restored it with appropriate copyediting and added another citation. Feel free to re-remove it if the sentence and the sources are deemed inappropriate. ~] <small>(])</small> 20:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


:::::I've received an off-Misplaced Pages email from Hetherington. But the Daily Mail's email system added "This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright." So I can't post what he wrote. ] (]) 21:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
:::We cannot provide the full-text of copyrighted material and sources that are not easily accessible online may still be used. If someone has time to do it, the best thing to do would be to add a quote parameter in the citation template, but this is also not required. I am the one that added this content. ] (]) 20:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


::::::Yeah, and we'd have to be sure that it isn't original research. I just wanted to amplify a bit a posting I made a bit earlier concerning my reorganization of the article. All the paid editors have been swept out of the article, in a very definitive way. So now the onus is on the volunteer editors to make this as fair as possible. If we don't, if we turn this into a hatchet job, the apologists for paid editors are going to use this as an example of how righteous it is to have paid editing, how terrific it is, what a great thing paid editing is. So please, people, let's bend over backwards to be fair. ] (]) 22:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
::: {{reply|CorporateM}}Can you please at least provide the quotations? ] (]) 20:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


== Correction of Terminology == == New Banc de Binary news ==


There's another article by Tony Hetheringdon of the Daily Mail.. Another victim who thought Banc de Binary was really in the US.
{{request edit}}


Then there's this: "CySec issues warning to investors about Banc De Binary ancillary website" . It's a blog, which links to another blog with a dead link. so that's useless as a source, but maybe there's a better reference for what, if anything, CySec did. --] (]) 06:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The term "bet" is inappropriate in the Binary Options industry, under which Banc De Binary operates and is regulated as a financial instrument. In paragraph 1, the sentence (sic) "Investors using its service bet on future prices of gold, oil, stocks or market indexes and are paid a return" should be changed to: (sic) "Investors using its service trade on future prices of gold, oil, stocks or market indexes and are paid a return"
:Here is the text of the Cyprus SEC warning: . A primary source, but clear as a bell and permitted by ]. ] (]) 23:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
::So that's it. CySEC says BDB Services can't operate in Cyprus. "BDB Services Ltd" is, according to BdB itself and the CFTC their unit in the Seychelles. The CFTC also says that corporation has an office in Israel. The Seychelles address, "106 Premier Building Victoria, Seychelles" is also the address of a large number of other businesses and a service for setting up an offshore business. It appears to be a mail drop service of some kind. ] (]) 03:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


Please see: http://www.cysec.gov.cy/licence_members_1_en.aspx where Banc De Binary is listed in a list of "Investment Firms"


==Reorganizing==
] (]) 18:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


I've done a bit of reorganizing. As I see it, the main problem was that there was a big chunk of text in the lead describing BDB's regulatory travails. In my opinion that was just banging them over the head too much. So I replaced with a summary sentence and moved it to the "regulatory issues" section. Also I put "products and services" first, so that readers understand what these folks do. Then I merged the "regulation" section, which wasn't necessary and simply needed to be part of the "history" section. There are other issues as well, such as jargon and dense writing. ] (]) 14:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
: "Bet" is appropriate, and the financial press calls it a bet:
:* Forbes ("Don't Gamble on Binary Options"): "Don’t kid yourself. These are gambling sites, pure and simple. It’s probably just a matter of time before regulators move in on them."
:* Financial Times ("Binary trading"): "These types of bet typically appeal to traders with limited experience, or appetite for risk, because the maximum profit and loss is known from the outset." They go on to quote Banc de Binary as calling it betting.
So it's a bet. We've previously established that it's not only a bet, but a bet against the house; there's no corresponding trader on the other side for each transaction. There is no "exchange" matching orders. Please don't re-raise this issue. Thank you. ] (]) 19:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
:: I apologize for raising an issue which I feel strongly about. It is obvious that you too feel strongly about this point. I would like to point out that the Forbes article is written by contributor Gordon Pape. And while Gordon Pape is an editor and publisher, he is not an editor OR publisher for Forbes. In fact, if you look up his profile in Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonpape/) you will see the statement "The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.". Were we to base our arguments on an opinion, this would be relevant, as would mine and yours.


Oh and I took out a line in which the Daily Mail calls them a "betting parlor" or something like that. This is a tabloid and I'm not comfortable with using their characterizations. We have a description from the WSJ already and that will suffice. ] (]) 14:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:: Also, regarding the Financial Times article (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e7a2472c-8714-11e2-9dd7-00144feabdc0.html), I am not a subscriber to the Financial Times, so I am unable to review it's content for clarity, nor review the opinion and bias of the author. <strike>However I suspect that it is an opinion based article as well.</strike>


Also I should mention that I removed the NPOV tag as there was no talk page discussion to justify it. I think that removing the block of text in the lead on their regulatory issues actually helps a lot in that regard. If anyone wants to of course they can reinstate the tag. ] (]) 14:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:: With those statements in mind, I am thus "re-raising" the issue.
: Given the history of this article, a "reorganization" which makes BdB look better has to be viewed with scepticism. "The company has a history of regulatory issues on two continents, and was barred from accepting U.S. customers in August 2013." misrepresents what they were doing. They were operating illegally in the United States, (and lying about their location) and they were caught. I'm tempted to revert that whole block of edits. Comments? --] (]) 17:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


::Well I don't know what you mean by "skepticism," but let's discuss what you think the problems are. Reviewing the article it worried me that we were putting so much on the regulatory issues in the lead. but I have an open mind on the subject. Maybe I overdid it. ] (]) 17:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:: Also, I request that you "establish" that "it's not only a bet, but a bet against the house" (sic).


==Regulatory issues section==
:: ] (]) 19:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I have consolidated all the negative stuff about this company into the "regulatory issues" section. Now, there is no question that this company is notable because of its negative news. I am fully acquainted with the fact that it is barred from doing business in the United States. I know that the Better Business Bureau hates them. I know all that stuff. But I think that we have to condense this section a bit. I could go ahead and boldly do it but I'd like to get some input from everybody about that general concept. I realize that there are some articles that are predominantly negative, and I'm not saying that this article ''shouldn't'' be one of them. But I do think that we need to consider carefully a reduction in the size, perhaps omitting some details, of all the negative stuff. Also, as a side issue, we need to fix some of the jargon and wordiness. Comments? ] (]) 22:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


BDB is a Fraud company and has been cheating people worldwide including me, I have been cheated 15,000 USD in October 2016. I have filed a case against them with Israel police and Cyprus Police along with Israel Security Authority. BDB is unethical company and makes money by cheating people in the name of investments. Please beware of this money making scams <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::Ah. The reference that established that is this: . That's from SpotOption's own site, but is addressed to their resellers. That used to be in the article until CorporateM deleted it in this big deletion: . ] (]) 19:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


:::: {{reply|Nagle}} could you possibly point me towards a line number? I'm having trouble finding the specific reference. ] (]) 19:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC) I've also archived but if anyone objects <sigh>, go ahead and unarchive and restore the fifty Berlin Walls of text. ] (]) 23:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
::::: Oh, sorry; fixed that. Meant to link to SpotOption's order execution policy. See section 3.5, "Pricing: The Company sets the prices to be used in binary options trading." All mention of SpotOption (of which Banc de Binary is an affiliate) was also deleted by CorporateM, another reason for a big rollback. --] (]) 20:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC) : I think we need to have more of the "negative stuff" in the lede. This outfit has been booted out of the US and two Canadian provinces for operating illegally, and is facing significant financial penalties if (when) they lose their lawsuit with the CFTC and SEC. That needs to be prominently mentioned. ] (]) 03:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::: {{reply|Nagle}} I'm not sure that the word "affiliate" is the correct term in this scenario. The traditional definition of affiliate as per the Miriam-Webster dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affiliate) states that an affiliate is:


:But not to the size it formerly had, which also was problematic by not summarizing what was in the body of the article. In fact, I moved it wholesale without causing any duplication. ] (]) 13:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
* "to closely connect (something or yourself) with or to something (such as a program or organization) as a member or partner"


::I have inserted a phrase into the lead referring to them being charged; I agree with {{u|Nagle}} that it deserved some more prominence. I'm not sure we do need to condense the regulatory issues section much; AFAICT from the outcome of previous AFDs, the company is only notable because of its regulatory issues. ] (]) 11:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
::::: That being said, I can understand the confusion, however I believe that "client" is a more appropriate term, since Banc De Binary does not benefit from any of SpotOption's other operations. The partnership is simply a "whitelabel" program, under which SpotOption provides services, and Banc De Binary pays for those services. In financial terms, Banc De Binary acts as a "broker" or a middleman between the end user and the "source" platform ( and in this case, exchange ).
::::: At the risk of re-invigorating a previous heated discussion, SpotOption acts as both an exchange AND a "Market Maker". And while i'm ashamed to use such a low quality source for the definition of a market maker, I will use the investopedia article found here: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketmaker.asp as reference for the definition and why it is needed. (additional information can be found here too: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/market+maker?show=0&t=1402269139).
::::: Regardless of the reputation of SpotOption, the fact that they are operating as an exchange warrants the use of the term "trade" instead of "bet". The question I pose in order to validate this statement is: Do you Trade or Bet when you buy options? Options are a financial instrument, and while Binary Options are not traditional options, they are regulated and traded as such. ] (]) 23:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
::::: I would also like to add that any comments about the reputation of SpotOption should ( in my opinion ) be held on the article for ], since ] and ] are 2 seperate entities. ] (]) 23:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


* I've got access to the FT. It's an overview of binary options trading, not an opinion piece. Black <s>]</s> kite ] 19:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC) :::That said, I think we should lose the two mentions of "more general warnings" about binary options trading. That's pure guilt by association. ] (]) 11:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


::::I hsve no problem with giving the regulatory issues more prominent play. In fact, if that's what you want, y'all can revert my edits and restore all the stuff I removed from the lead. I was bending over backwards to be fair, and I see that far from being pleased by my removal of all that text from the lead, a BDB editor squawked on his user page that my perfectly reasonable summary sentence was no good. That has kind of dampened my enthusiasm for bending over backwards. ] (]) 17:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
:: {{reply|Black Kite}} Thank you for explaining the nature of the article. I would hope that sources of information such as Financial Times would allow researchers to view their content without having to subscribe to it. Out of curiosity, if it IS paid content, then wouldn't ] apply? ] (]) 19:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
::: As long as we don't copy or close-paraphrase the content, it's fine; the same as any other copyrighted content. Black <s>]</s> kite ] 19:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


::::Reliable sources refer to the site as gambling. Betting seems appropriate. We prefer to use common language rather than industry terms. ] (]) 20:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC) :::::Others may differ, but I'm not unhappy with where it is now. I will remove those "more general warnings" absent objections. ] (]) 17:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
:::BDBJack, like I said, I'm treating myself as subject to COI rules, it's a good higher standard to apply to myself in this topic area. I do seem to have some natural empathy for this poor, downtrodden company (cue violins) and I don't want to be too biased even though the anti-BDB arguments don't seem to hold any water to me. But we'll keep on our quest until we get a better stable version.
:::On the thread topic, I already argued "bet" is colloquial and ] doesn't include BDB ''or anything like it''. Also we have a source that uses "essentially gambling", which is fine, because it includes a qualifier, but only once in a short article. ] (]) 20:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


::::::I have to say that the general warning stuff doesn't bother me, as it puts the regulatory stance toward binary options into perspective. ] (]) 17:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
::::: {{reply|CorporateM}} Can you please provide both guidelines for reliable sources and a list of them? I submit as counter-evidence the following sources:


== Spotoption ==
* http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/binary-option.asp
Re {{u|Huon}}'s recent edit, do you think we might have something about how they provide such services to "other" binary options brokers, leaving out the 170? I agree the text removed was inappropriate, but I think the point that Spotoption (as far as we know) isn't a BdB cutout is significant. ] (]) 14:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
* http://www.investopedia.com/articles/optioninvestor/10/binary-options.asp
: Here's SpotOption's list of "brands". Banc de Binary is at the top of the list. SpotOption at least hosts the sites and runs the back end. SpotOption offers several levels of affiliation. There's "white label", where they're just a service provider. Then there's SpotOption Exchange, where SpotOption Exchange takes the financial risk and the front organization just drives traffic to them. Banc de Binary is on the SpotOption Exchange customer list, too. SpotOption claims 70% of the binary option market. SpotOption would be worth an article if we could find out more about them. Here's an informal overview of the industry.. There are six back-end providers in the binary options business, with SpotOption by far the largest, with 148 of the 248 known binary option "brokers". (A previous big player was iOption, but they shut down in November, 2013.) ] (]) 18:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
* http://invezz.com/contributed/forex/11349-Binary-Option-Trading-UK
* http://forexmagnates.com/canada-binary-options-alerts-bcsc-warns-of-tradequicker-traderush-warned-of-by-fcaa/
* http://www.marketintelligencecenter.com/articles/504807


== SEC vs Banc de Binary update ==
] (]) 20:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The SEC won an initial summary judgement.. Litigation continues.


There's an "Statement of Uncontroverted Facts in Support of Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission" (case document 79-2) available, but you have to go to Pacer to get it. This comes from depositions of Owen Laurent: "According to Mr. Laurent, he and his father own the Banc de Binary Group. ... Mr. Laurent is the founder, president and chief executive officer of BdB Ltd. ... Mr. Laurent is the 50% shareholder of BdB Ltd; the other 50% shareholder is his father." All the businesses of the BdB group were owned by Laurent and/or his father. We have in the article that Laurent owned 50%; now we know who owns the other half.
::::On the "affiliate" front, SpotOptions refers to Banc de Binary as one of their "brands". They also use the term "partners". Banc de Binary itself has an affilate program; they pay others to set up web sites to get people to sign up with them. (That's probably why there are so many sites plugging Banc de Binary.) Banc de Binary also has a franchising program.. I suggest that we say that Banc de Binary is a brand of SpotOption, since they say that themselves. SpotOption has about 200 brands: "Banc de Swiss", "Dragon Options", and even "FonBet". Banc de Binary itself uses the term "bet" there. ] (]) 03:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
::::: Oh, and even better, SpotOption, BdB's parent/brand/partner/whatever, is exhibiting at the International Casino Exhibition. "SpotOption's financial solution has also been incorporated into existing gaming operations as a customizable plug-in, allowing operators to expand their portfolio of offerings as well as their database." It's gambling. ] (]) 04:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


Other than Offshore Alert, no press source has picked up on this yet. So it's premature to put this in the article. ] (]) 19:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
== Revision Request ==


:Primary sources are permissable but need to be used with care. If the document doesn't require interpretation it might be OK. ] (]) 14:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Can someone change the article back to how it was yesterday before it was whitewashed, back to how it was when BlackKite lifted protection?
I'd like to add some more details to the article, which is impossible in the whitewashed state it's been left in by COI editors acting on behalf of Banc de Binary] (]) 19:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>


::The court documents aren't that clear, and some key ones are under seal for now. Updating the article is probably premature, unless there's more press coverage. The case is moving forward to trial some time next year. ] (]) 20:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
:: Can you please provide evidence of other COI editors? As far as I know, I am the only author who is here on behalf of Banc De Binary. Maybe you should post to https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents if you believe that there is an undeclared COI editor.
:::It looks like the court case is finishing up, and a settlement between Banc de Binary, the SEC, and the CFTC is expected by October 25, 2015. So we should have a disposition on that soon. ] (]) 19:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
::::Settlement period extended to the end of 2015, per Justia. No resolution yet; case still pending. ] (]) 05:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::Another extension, to February 8, 2016. ] (]) 00:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::Case settled. Court order issued. BdB to pay $11 million in restitution and penalties. US customers get refunds. Owen Lawrent pays a personal penalty. Good WSJ source. Added to article. ] (]) 22:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::PACER link (pay) for the actual settlement document. . The National Futures Association, not Banc De Binary, is administering the refunds. They have BdB's US customer list. One of the minor provisions is that BdB had to agree that "neither they nor any of their agents or employees under their authority or control shall take any action or make any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any allegation in the Complaint, Amended Complaint, or the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in this Consent Order, or creating or tending to create the impression that the Complaint, Amended Complaint and this Consent Order is without a factual basis". ] (]) 22:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2014 ==
:: I've moved your request to a separate heading so that it does not interfere with the flow of the other request and so that it can get the attention that it deserves. ] (]) 23:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Banc De Binary|answered=yes}}
== Adding information about CySEC Regulation ==
<!-- Begin request -->
Please change the logo from 'Banc de Binary logo.gif' to 'Banc de Binary Logo.svg'.
Thanks McMetrox
<!-- End request -->
] (]) 23:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:{{done}} --] <sup>]</sup> 23:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


== Let's not in any way promote the company ==
{{request edit}}


I think that the screen shot of bdB's page is not needed in the article, or even the link to its page or logo. BdB is essentially an illegal site in the US because it doesn't even follow the minimal rules for a "financial institution." There's no need for us to promote the company in any way. That would be a gross disservice to our readers. This is up to a consensus of the editors here, of course. There are no rules that say we *must* include this info. ]<sub>(])</sub> 16:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Banc De Binary is a company that is regulated by CySEC, and thus has regulation in 28 other countries.


:I don't particularly care about the screenshot, but I strongly oppose the removal of the logo and the link—those are important pieces of information about the company, useful to readers both for ensuring that they have reached the page they're looking for and for informing them about the company. I don't think there's anything promotional about including a link, a screenshot, and a logo—those are standard pieces of information included in many Misplaced Pages articles about websites. —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 16:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
* https://eu.bancdebinary.com/about-us/regulation/
:{{ec}} That violates ]. The logo and link are standard elements we try to have, no matter what the organization does. The only exception I can think of for the link is if the organization ''hosts'' copyright violations or other illegal materials. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
* http://forexmagnates.com/banc-de-binary-gains-regulation-and-expands-its-business-to-cyprus/
:::Saying that these elements are "standard pieces of information" does not mean that we have to include them. BTW, this organization does host illegal materials. They are closed down in the US without a trial, only because they will not come to the US to give depositions and face trial. ]<sub>(])</sub> 17:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
* http://www.binaryoptionsblacklist.com/broker-reviews/banc-de-binary/
::::This isn't "U.S. Misplaced Pages". Many, many companies can't operate in the U.S. for a variety of reasons. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
* http://www.bonusbinaryoptions.net/regulated-binary-option-broker-who-really-has-a-licence
:::::I'm not sure what this colloquy is about, but I agree the logo is appropriate. But I don't think we need the screenshot, given that many readers can't even access the page in the screenshot! A more appropriate screenshot would be the one US readers see, but that is just a pathway to a self-serving statement. ] (]) 17:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
* http://www.fairbinaryoptions.com/brokers/banc-de-binary/
::::::As a US reader, I '''can''' access the page in the screenshot. Is there reason to believe that some readers can't? —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 17:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
* http://scambroker.com/banc-de-binary/
:::::::When I click on the link in the infobox I get a statement saying as follows: "Dear Valued Customer, Banc De Binary is voluntarily discontinuing its operations in the United States. The United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission have asserted that Banc De Binary is not permitted to offer its binary option products to U.S. residents without registering with those agencies." The rest of the screen is whited out and there is now way to access it. ] (]) 22:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Huh. Well, in that case, maybe we should include the screenshot, in order to illustrate the appearance of the website for readers who can't access it. —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 23:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


::::::I don't care about whether we have a screenshot or not. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
It should be noted under the regulation section.
::I'm OK with the logo but the screenshot is unnecessary. ] (]) 16:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::BdB is not "closed down in the US without a trial". They're in court, and have been since at least July of 2013, when the first injunction against them was issued.. Currently, they're arguing over whether BdB will have to disclose the identity of their "confidential ultimate beneficiary owner".. (That's new information; previous info indicated that Owen Laurent and his father were the owners. Apparently there's someone else behind the scenes.) Owen Laurent was deposed, but exercised his Fifth Amendment right not to answer. The SEC and CFTC still want more documents and files from BdB, including their list of US customers. ] (]) 18:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::As for the screenshot issue, ] doesn't have a screenshot. ] doesn't have a screenshot. None of the big brokerages seem to have a screenshot, not even ]. ] doesn't have a screenshot. ] does, but it's not identified as a specific company. So why should BdB? ] (]) 05:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


::::::::::I think that is a much more cogent argument than the question of legality in certain jurisdictions. ] (]) 17:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:Leaving this one open for discussion. ] (]) 20:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::The screenshot has been gone for over a month... --] <sup>]</sup> 18:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


== Banc De Binary Liverpool Sponsorship ==
Is there a reason that the main focus on Banc De Binary is derived from a lawsuit that is ongoing in a country that the company has no business in? Banc De Binary is a licenced institution in over 28 countries. There are other jurisdictions, courts, laws - and countries where Banc De Binary is active. If this is an article about the company, lets shift some focus to actual accomplishments, including the various awards the company has received. ] (]) 20:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
:::(ec) Both of those are important. The 4 or so regulators that it does have need to be listed, because I almost put a "globalize" tag on it. Also, to answer Jack, there is a Wiki misperception about this article, possibly supported by the AFD, that "it's only notable because it's sued". ] (]) 21:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


There have been a few sources noting that Banc De Binary has started to sponsor Liverpool F.C:
It's debatable whether CySec regulation can be described as genuine when it has just 42 employees and the great majority of firms that have chosen to be regulated are retail forex brokers that have obtained registration from CySEC as they generally see this as an easy way to get a license without having to meet stringent requirements that would be imposed by other European financial regulators, yet still qualify under MiFID and so completely free to operate in all European Union member countries.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Cyprus_Securities_and_Exchange_Commission</ref>. Cysec has no real enforcement powers, a serious company would want to be regulated by major regulator and not one with barely any employees or reputation.] (]) 20:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
:You're conducting original research again. Do you prefer templates or nontemplates? We don't ''do'' OR on Misplaced Pages anymore, pardner. Shall we go to ]? ] (]) 20:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


http://www.financemagnates.com/binary-options/brokers/liverpool-fc-signs-new-one-year-deal-with-banc-de-binary/
:: I believe that statement falls under ]. Regardless, regulation is regulation. Your personal opinion on it is valued as an opinion, but as shown by the "not a forum" tag, we should keep this discussion geared towards positive contributions to the article, not opinionated statements. Regardless, the fact that we have a physical presence in Cyprus (and we did for some time before we were regulated) made CySEC regulation the default candidate for regulation. As it is, CySEC was the first regulator in Europe to offer such regulation. ] (]) 21:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


https://www.reddit.com/r/LiverpoolFC/comments/3k268e/liverpool_fc_agree_new_partnership_with_banc_de/
That's completely untrue, Binary Options have been around for donkey's years, a long time before Cysec even, IG Index in the UK for example<ref>http://www.ig.com/uk/about-ig</ref>. What Cysec are offering is make-believe regulation for online casinos that try to look like IG Index or Nadex. ] (]) 21:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>


http://www.insideworldfootball.com/premier-league/17836-liverpool-land-banc-de-binary-in-new-online-trading-deal <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:: Can you please provide evidence to support the statement "What Cysec are offering is make-believe regulation for online casinos" (...). If not I ask that you keep the discussion to topics and statements that can be supported and referenced. ] (]) 21:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


:Promotional text from questionable sources? I don't think so. ] (]) 13:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
:: Also, on that note, can you please explain why your statement negates the fact that Banc De Binary is regulated by CySEC, or how that fact is not relevant to the article? ] (]) 22:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
:: Not seeing anything on Liverpool FC's own web site about this. Here's their official merchandise. They sell Liverpool FC T-shirts with a choice of "Standard Chartered", "Garudo Indonesia", or "Carlsberg" logos. No "Banc de Binary" option. But Liverpool FC did do some kind of deal with Banc De Binary. Not clear how much. Maybe anyone can buy a sponsorship at some low level. When they buy "Banc de Binary Stadum", then it's worth mentioning. ] (]) 19:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


== Restoring past version == == Related Florida-based scam ==


It seems that someone in Florida doing business as Vision Financial Partners was reselling Banc De Binary services in the US. (Also, allegedly, stealing customer funds.) The CFTC has clamped down. BdB is not a named defendant in this one, but allegedly did accept funds from US persons, which they are enjoined against doing. Not worth a mention in the article yet, but worth following for future developments. ] (]) 22:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
A number of long-term editors with no ties to paid editing worked on ] version of the article. While I don't agree with all of his edits, I don't see a reason to throw all that work away. However if someone reverts back to the "long-form" I won't be reverting again. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks, I agree with you. Hey, how about this. I'll <s>rent out</s> offer my ] prime space for anyone to create a content fork. Only rule is that the goal is to make the two look like each other. As it stands, the various short versions are good for building harmony, despite today's flareups. ] (]) 20:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
:: ] are not allowed, especially if they're due to a content dispute. ] (]) 21:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I'll look. ] (]) 21:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2016 ==
== HistorianofRecenttimes and Smallbones ==


{{edit semi-protected|Banc De Binary|answered=yes}}
Should I go to ANI? The immediate user histories of both are suddenly very non-Wiki. They appear, both, to be deleting my comments as if I'm a banned editor, without evidence other than my interest in this topic. There are too many probable violations for me to template or list; come and see. Who can advise me? ] (]) 21:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello,
I don't like this. If I go offline, will I still be called banned when I get back? ] (]) 22:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Please link to our website http://bdbvictims.org We have set up a website to assist people who have been harmed by Banc De Binarys fraudulent activities and have also written a guide to assist them in recovering their funds through chargebacks with their banks.


We have found that a number of forums have removed posts about Banc De Binary and are obviously affiliated with them. We are an independent organisation who are helping people fight fraud. We have also managed to have one of Banc De Binarys affiliates here in Australia http://www.binaryoptions.net.au shutdown by ACORN and the Australian Police. Banc De Binary have now posted on their home page that they no longer offer services to Australians (after their affiliate was shut down and they were trading in Australia without permission) which you have mentioned in the wiki already.
:I think this was just a mistake - ] being a little overzealous in his efforts to combat a very specific banned editor. ] (]) 04:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


Kind Regards,
==Fully protected again==
Cameron Hay
Sorry folks, but this is getting to be a problem. I think we need to work out (a) what content should actually be in the article, rather than everyone trying to change it at the same time, and (b) which editors should actually be editing this without declaring any COI; there are clearly issues here. Black <s>]</s> kite ] 21:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Co Founder
:Be easier if all COI and SPA editors agreed to use the talk page only and let experienced editors make the actual changes but... --] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
]


] (]) 05:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
:: {{reply|Black Kite}} Please see my request: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Banc_De_Binary#Fully_protected_again. The massive amounts of "reverts" are being submitted by an SPA with negative bias towards the subject. ] (]) 21:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
: {{not done}} Misplaced Pages is ]. By the same token, we don't allow any sorts of petition sites. Advocacy sites are rarely included unless the site or organization itself is ] enough to merit an article. The lede already notes that they are banned from accepting customers in several countries (including Australia). <b>] ]</b> 15:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
::: The problem is wider than that, though, in that we clearly have editors with, absent a better way of saying it, "pro-" and "anti-" views. We need to concentrate on finding a ''neutral'' version, not swaying between the version preferred by either "side". Black <s>]</s> kite ] 21:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
==Tightened up US enforcement actions section==
:::(ec) We had a neutral version for about 10 hours last night. I have an appointment soon and need to leave the discussion. I left you a talk question. Can anyone counsel me how to proceed? ] (]) 21:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
* The court case is complete and a permanent injunction is in place, so text was changed to past tense where appropriate.
::Black Kite was very kind, by preventing HistorianofRecenttimes from turning 3RR into 4RR. As I said, I'd count CorporateM and NeilN as consensus among the short reverts without counting me, and it was clear that Orangemike a moment ago preferred Bilby's short version that I also affirmed. But see the Historian and Smallbones section. At any rate, I would appreciate counsel on whether my revert was inappropriate given my view of the consensus.
* Added link to official court-ordered refund site. (Not a soapbox; that's where US victims can file claims and get refunds.)
::At least we got rid of the edit requests and have a good new set of edit requests. We might even use my three-drafts comparison again to seek consensus, I dunno. We do seem to need the short version. ] (]) 21:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
* Consolidated some duplicated material.
* Moved Cyprus material to new subsection.
] (]) 07:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


== References ==
== More "agreed upon" version ==


Most of the references are either deadlinks or do not verify the claims. Some are not even a RS. I have tagged such links so it needs an expert attention to fix these references. ] (]) 21:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
{{edit protected|answered=no}}
: You're right. It's helpful, though, to try to fix dead links, rather than just flagging them. If the content is in the Internet Archive, you can add "archiveurl" and "archivedate" tags to the citation template, which will fix the link by redirecting to an archived copy. ] (]) 01:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


== keeping unverifiable facts ==
I'm adding a table to make is easier to understand who is pro and who is against:


Can you please discuss why you're insisting to keep the texts which are not verified? --] (]) 16:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
'''Non-COI and Non-SPA Editors'''
Please, at least add sources which verify the claims then you can add back the texts. --] (]) 16:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


== uneditable link to company ] #7 problem ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Pro !! Semi-Pro !! Anti
|-
|
* Mike V - poor sourcing in current version
* CorporateM - poor sourcing in current version
||
* NeilN - prior version but with one thing added
||
* Nagle - too much article-churn
* Smallbones - COI behavior
* Figureofnine
|-
|}


{{Infobox company
'''COI and SPA Editors'''
| name = Banc De Binary
| image =
| caption =
| type = Private
| foundation = 2009
| location =
| key_people = Oren Laurent (CEO) <br/> Abraham 'Abe' Cofnas, Head Analyst
| industry = ]
}}


There is a link to the company in the box here, at least when it's on the article page. There are two problems with this ]#7 says that links should not be added if they are restricted or unreachable by a large number of editors/readers. This link fits that description.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Pro !! Semi-Pro !! Anti
|-
|
* BDBJack
* Okteriel
||
||
* HistorianofRecenttimes (assumed - no statement by user has been made in this discussion thus far)
|-
|}


The second problem is some programing trick that makes this link uneditable. Since I can't edit it - I've removed the whole box. If anybody can explain the programing trick, please let me know. ]<sub>(])</sub> 02:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I've accidentally misrepresented someone, please feel free to move yourselves around so that it reflects your positions more clearly. ] (]) 13:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
::I've removed COIs from the vote tally for the obvious reason. ] (]) 14:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


:Ran into something similar on another page a while back. The URL is on Wikidata, not actually in the infobox here, and the infobox is setup to pull the official link from Wikidata if there is no parameter (including a blank one) for the official website. Easy way to fix is just add the parameter for the official website and leave it blank. That said, I would say leave the URL up there. It does give the reader in the US some useful information - they played fast and loose with the rules and are paying the penalty. ] (]) 02:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
:: {{reply|CorporateM}} Can you please be specific as to the reason? As far as I understand WP:COI policy, COI editors that declare their COI have just as much right to have their opinions weighed as non-COI editors. However, I could be mistaken as I am not as proficient in the policies of COI as yourself (who has won several awards for making COI edits in a way that is very constructive and correct). However, maybe a second table showing the opinions of COI editors would be appropriate (in order to easily display the breakdown while maintaining the seperation?) ] (]) 14:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


::Actually, it's a bit of a trick website. Americans can ultimately get through if they try hard enough, So we seem to be helping them break the law. And this site is where they find their victims. So it seems like we're helping to rip off our readers. No thanks! ]<sub>(])</sub> 02:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
::: I've added a second table showing COI and SPA editor opinions. I hope this should make things clearer. ] (]) 14:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
::: I've also tagged the nature of the COI or SPA to the best of my knowledge. ] (]) 14:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


:::Works for me. ] (]) 16:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
::''Compromise proposal by NeilN in bold below. ] (]) 06:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I would like to propose a revert to revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Banc_De_Binary&oldid=612128327, due to it being having a bit more concensus than the current version based on the revision history. ] (]) 21:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
:I've deactivated the request. ''First'' get consensus, ''then'' make the request. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
:I affirm BDBJack, but that's because I know from the history what revisions he likes, and I don't count my vote for anything but a comment. I'll look at it later. ] (]) 21:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
:: {{reply|NeilN|Black Kite}} I find it hard to understand how a concept of consensus wasn't reached. As far as i saw, there were only 2 editors ( 3 if you count the revision from another editor, one of whom is an SPA, and 2 of whom are actively biased against the subject ) who have actively campaigned against the revision listed above. The reason the current version was removed and reworked can be found in various requests and disucssions on the talk page. While I completely understand the issue that ] is referring to, I would like to see a resolution which actually provides us with a neutral article. Maybe starting with a stub and having moderation will help prevent the kind of mass edit warring which has been occuring. ] (]) 21:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
:::And we have an editor with a blatant COI (yourself) and a SPA in favor of your preferred version. Not a ringing endorsement. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:::: {{reply|NeilN}}I'm not sure that I qualify as an editor. I'm definitely an SPA with COI, however aside from updating the company logo I have not actually made any contributions to the article, just request. As for my own COI, yes I am involved and interested, but that's why i'm using the talk page for my edits. However, myself and SPA aside, there are other non-COI and non-SPA editors who have confirmed the version of the article as proposed. (Even the 1 member of the "opposition" group who only made a revision has agreed with the version proposed above). That being said, an article with so much controversy and dispute could benefit from a "fresh" start. ] (]) 22:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


I have just modified {{plural:5|one external link|5 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
* <b>Support prior version</b> as an urgent ] and ] issue, given that the current article is filled with junk sources both for attack-content and for promotion. I think ] is too ] to have made article-protection to their preferred version and it's embarrassing for an admin to restore sources like Investopedia and court documents - an admin of all people should know better. ] (]) 22:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324798904578529241482337164
:* Please feel free to point out the edits I've made to the article that make me ]. If you can, I'll quite happily remove the protection (so that someone else can apply it). Black <s>]</s> kite ] 19:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131101153835/http://www.investing.com/brokers/banc-de-binary/interviews/banc-de-binary-ceo-oren-laurent-opens-up-on-binary-options-169615 to http://www.investing.com/brokers/banc-de-binary/interviews/banc-de-binary-ceo-oren-laurent-opens-up-on-binary-options-169615
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131128134010/http://bookings.executiveoffices.co.uk:80/virtual-offices/1-king-street-ec2v-8au to http://bookings.executiveoffices.co.uk/virtual-offices/1-king-street-ec2v-8au
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081229053844/http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk:80/ to http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019173953/http://bookings.executiveoffices.co.uk/virtual-offices/1-king-street-ec2v-8au to http://bookings.executiveoffices.co.uk/virtual-offices/1-king-street-ec2v-8au


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
*As it stands, the longer version contains some material that is poorly sourced with tabloids, clickbait websites, or non-third-party sources. I think the best approach to this article is to start with the shorter version and build up the article with content that is neutral in tone and reliably sourced. The shorter version does a better job in conveying material in a fair and informative tone, which would serve as a good basis for expansion. Contentious material can be discussed on the talk page to ensure that it's reliably sourced and that it is given appropriate weight in the article. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 22:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
*If we're talking about reverting to a prior version and then fulling protecting the article again then '''support''' only if the US SEC and Ontario SC statements found in are added. Otherwise, '''oppose'''. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 05:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 00:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' any major changes right now. The present version has its flaws, but it's far better than what we had a few hours ago. There's been way too much article churn in the past few days. There's been edit warring, and that needs to settle down. ] (]) 06:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
*OK, I was going to say that looks like consensus but now it's consensus except Nagle. NeilN is asking that '''we restore version 612128327 per BDBJack but also add the text below, which would fit best after "Financial Control Authority" (whitespace removed):
:''It appears on the ]'s "List of Unregistered Soliciting Entities That Have Been the Subject of Investor Complaints".<ref>{{cite web|title=Public Alert: Unregistered Soliciting Entities|url=http://www.sec.gov/investor/oiepauselist.htm|publisher=Securities and Exchange Commission|accessdate=15 October 2012|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20130223030930/http://www.sec.gov/investor/oiepauselist.htm|archivedate=2013-02-23}}</ref>''
:''In Canada, it is listed on the ]'s ''Investors Warning List'' of "companies that appear to be engaging in activities that may pose a risk to investors".<ref>{{cite web|title=Investors Warning List|url=http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/en/Investors_warning-list_index.htm#v|publisher=Ontario Securities Commission|accessdate=13 January 2013|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20131017000849/http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/en/Investors_warning-list_index.htm|archivedate=2013-10-17}}</ref>
:I'm good with that as a consensus compromise for now, in an attempt to allow us to channel talk into smaller arguments. I'm also good with most other short versions. I'm not sure the inserted text should stand indefinitely though. ] (]) 06:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - the only thing this company is notable for is being banned from offering its services in the US (by both the CFTC and the SEC). That material should be in the first sentence or two. BTW all edits on Misplaced Pages are governed by US law and there is an injunction in the US against advertising this company's services. An employee and another editor with an admitted COI have edited the article and are pushing for changes in this section. There's a $10,000 bounty that's been offered to get this article changed to an earlier version. So how can we possibly take the COI editors' propositions seriously? ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 13:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I saw this article discussed at ]. The current version is far more informative than the abbreviated version that is proposed, and I see no problem with the sourcing. Smallbones' comments above are accurate and his statement concerning the ban on advertising, in conjunction with the behavior of this company on Misplaced Pages, is disturbing. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
: {{reply|Figureofnine}} Welcome to the discussion Figureofnine. I would like to comment that the proposed change is to create a stub from which the article can be improved. For right now, the article does not seem (at least in my opinion) to be in compliance with ], and while there is a lot of information which can be gleaned from the article, the majority of contributions were made by an SPA with bias against the subject. It may be in violation of other Misplaced Pages policies that I am not aware of (since i am also an SPA with declared COI, I admit that my understanding of some of Misplaced Pages's policies is not yet complete). Is it possible that you would be more agreeable to a "compromise" as noted by ]?
::I see no NPOV issue here because the company is the subject of an injunction and other legal proceedings, and that apparently is the sole reason for the existence of this article. ] is similarly negative, and it is NPOV. What is your response to Smallbones' comments about the injunction against advertising? Doesn't your participation in this discussion, and the behavior of the company on-wiki, put you, your company and possibly Misplaced Pages in legal jeopardy? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 17:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
::: {{reply|Figureofnine}} I am moving this discussion to your talk page since it does not directly relate either to the topic of this discussion or the subject. ] (]) 17:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
::::Then I'll move it back. Nothing can be more relevant. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 17:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::{{reply|Figureofnine}}In response to ]'s comment about the legality of our activities, I am not sure of the legal ramifications since I am neither overly knowledgeable about the applicable laws or policies, nor am I a lawyer who would be knowledgeable about such information. However I am not aware that my participation in the discussion on ] is in violation of any Misplaced Pages policies. If there are such policies, I would very much like to be made aware of them. I have kept myself to editing only the Talk page, using edit requests and (attempting) to gain consensus. I very much believe if this was NOT the case, my account would have been blocked a long time ago. In fact, you can view the discussion about my ability to make contributions to Misplaced Pages in general here: ].


== Proposed split, moving SEC case to a new article ==
:::::I have made several attempts to both correct factual errors and contribute information to the article, by opening discussions on the Talk page and awaiting consensus. That being said, my attempts at gaining consensus have fallen on deaf ears. The only other major contributor to the article is an SPA with major bias against the subject. Were I to act according to what I understood from Misplaced Pages policy on COI editing, I would have been within my rights to make the changes myself after a period of inactivity. I have purposely refrained from such activity out of deference to the fact that any edits that I make would be interpreted as "Bad Faith" edits. That being said, until the mention of this $10,000 bounty, the level of activity on the Banc De Binary page was confined to myself, the previously mentioned biased SPA, and a hand full of "others" who caused a mess on the page.


Someone put a <nowiki>{{split}}</nowiki> tag in the article, proposing splitting out the SEC/CFTC litigation which forced BdB out of the US market. They didn't start a discussion, so I created this location for it. ] (]) 22:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::That being said, i do not believe that it is fair to "blanket" all COI editors as "paid editors". While I am technically a paid editor because I am an employee of the company, I have been active long before the "bounty". I am also active off-wiki in IRC channels, checking with users with more experience than myself on how to proceed. While I do not expect this to sway your opinion of my participation in these matters, It should be noted.


* There seems no good reason for such a split. It's not that big a section. It was a single lawsuit and wasn't complex. It's not like ]. ] (]) 22:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::However, I would like to remind you of the following policies:
:*Hey there! This was done as part of my copy edit specified above, which is still ongoing. The section seemed big enough to warrant a separate article, especially considering the sources available and therefore the case's notability. It's over 30% of the article by word count in case you didn't notice, and the article I put forward is significantly tidier.<small>]</small> ]; ] 16:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::* ]
*There's no need for a separate article. All that will do is remove some info from this page where people will see it. I don't think BdB is notable for anything else. They ran a scam in the US, got caught, and lost the slam-dunk lawsuit. The lawsuit info belongs here. ]<sub>(])</sub> 04:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::* ] (sic)
::I've redirected the forked page to this article's page. If the fork is needed according to consensus, then we can just revert back before the redirect. ]<sub>(])</sub> 17:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::* ] (Directed towards the SPA with negative bias, since there is a lot of "negative" promotion occurring).
*No, there is absolutely no justification for a separate article. This is a minor company with a big fat SEC case. ] (]) 18:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::* ]
*I agree all relevant aspects of the lawsuit need to covered. I do believe, however, that there's more to the subject and therefore its article. The company appears to have legal standing in the European Union, for example, and there's information available about its dealings, etc. Words such as "scam" (even though it might be tempting to simplify it as such) do not help improve the encyclopaedic quality of Misplaced Pages. In my consideration of ], ], ] and ], a section such as this might be a prime candidate for forking given the balance of the current article. What are your thoughts on this? Best, <small>]</small> ]; ] 02:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
::::: Basically, what I'm trying to say is: '''Don't undermine the value of my comments or my opinion simply because I am a COI editor. My opinion has just as much value as your's does, and I have just as much of a right to participate in discussions about the subject as you do.'''. ] (]) 18:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::::But if it's correct that your company can't advertise, what are you doing here? It seems to me that your participation is a form of advertising. Putting aside the issue of value, I am not a subject of an injunction against advertising, while you are. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::::{{reply|Figureofnine}}From your statement it appears that my presence and affiliation with the subject of the article seems to have offended you in some way. I apologize for this, as no offense was meant. That being said, I am neither advertising for the company, nor am I "a subject of an injunction against advertising". If I am, can you please provide sources stating so? ] (]) 19:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::But what about the injunction against the company you work for? You saying that Smallbones is wrong? Or are you just "DKing"? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::{{reply|Figureofnine}}I'm not aware of any "injunction against advertising" levied against Banc De Binary, so in this case I must request evidence of said "injunction against advertising" against either myself of Banc De Binary. It would be helpful in general if the accusatory statements made would be backed up by sources, even if the quality is "sub-par" so that way at least we are aware of on what basis the statement is being made. ] (]) 19:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::OK, that's what I was asking. As a company employee, you are held to a higher standard in terms of your knowledge of the company. When you're asked a question and don't respond, it gives the impression of evasiveness. Smallbones can elaborate more on his statement. My opposition to the earlier version stands. The comments made here and elsewhere denigrating the SEC litigation releases as sources are disingenuous. They are clear and in plain language, and are high quality sources. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{reply|Figureofnine}} I'm sorry, I misunderstood Smallbones's question for a unsupported statement. Thank you for clarifying. Is there any possibility to persuade you towards a "stub" version which can be improved, through consensus based editing instead of the SPA account's '''BOLD''' editing? ] (]) 19:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I think that given the complexity of the subject matter, the longer version now frozen by protection should be the applicable baseline. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::Hi, Jack, yes, you're handling yourself fine, don't let anyone wear you down. Keep calm, and improve Misplaced Pages. Also, your segmenting the discussion is absolutely the best method, once people are ready to really discuss the article. The legal issue is only that, about last year, WP got very concerned by the FTC guidelines on Twitter advertising, and two news stories, and decided it was sufficient to warn editors about them, and then stay out of the fray. Under those legal guidelines, you are absolutely fine, and your contributions are sterling. The only point I'd add (besides the sudden interesting interest from Figureofnine) is that I don't have a problem with COI editors' being slightly discounted when necessary to consider them as a group; but where there's only one your opinion shouldn't be discounted any. ] (]) 18:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


== Reminder ==
To the straight '''opposes''': Are you okay with the sources currently being used? --] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
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 ]. Unfortunately these pages have had lots of paid editing (both declared and undeclared) and lots of disruption has resulted from that. Just one possible example is the edits to the article in August 2016 made by SPAs who got themselves banned.
:::::::I'm not a lawyer, I have no idea what the injunction may consider "advertising", nor what is legally considered advertising in this or any similar context. But I do know that Misplaced Pages has definitions of advertising, specifically at ], where it states:


Paid editing problems for this article go much beyond that, however. The subject of the article has signed a settlement, which has been approved by the court, paying about $11 million to settle the charges *and* agreeing not to solicit US customers *even indirectly*. I believe that removing material from this article could be viewed as as indirectly soliciting US customers. In short paid editing of this article is a real can of worms. ]<sub>(])</sub> 16:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::::"{{tq|Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article.}}"


And I should add that BDB accounts are site banned per ANI ]<sub>(])</sub> 05:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::::That is what Misplaced Pages defines as advertising; material that is subjective, biased, and containing puffery. Advertisements may be unsourced or sourced to content controlled and/or advocated by the article subject. ] also covers articles that are primarily used as advertisements, which are "{{tq|solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual}}" and "{{tq|are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website}}".
:There appear to have been instances of undisclosed COI editing; I'm assuming the latest string of edits by {{u|Beranpolti}} back in August were an example of that. Going through the article as it stands I'm inclined to observe the most glaring issues being poor quality sources and prose. I do not see widespread promotional issues or other common symptoms of paid editing, do you? Best, <small>]</small> ]; ] 02:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
::I do see a promotion problem with this article going back several years. The main problem is that there are all sorts of sources in the article. The reliable sources effectively say that BDB is a scam, the unreliable sources pretend that they are not a scam, but have some non-scam business. So we are presenting a scam as if they are in some way a normal business. That's a very harmful promotion. ]<sub>(])</sub> 05:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
:::This article had some of the worst COI problems in Misplaced Pages history. See, as Smallbones points out, ]. Anyone new to editing this article should read that. At one point, the company offered $10,000 to anyone who could "fix" the article to not be so critical. Thus, there's a degree of suspicion associated with edits that delete verified negative info about the company.
:::In some ways, the company is worse than the Misplaced Pages article indicates. The Times of Israel series, "The Wolves of Tel Aviv", while not specific to Banc de Binary, gives an overview. 97% of binary option customers lose all their money..
:::The only reason that Banc de Binary can operate in Europe at all is because the European Union allows financial entities licensed in one EU country to operate in all the others. Cyprus is willing to let binary options companies operate, and they then sell into the rest of the EU. There's a plan to crack down on this as part of ], the EU's new financial regulation scheme, which was supposed to take effect January 3, 2017, but has been postponed a year. The Israeli ] has a bill in the works to crack down on the binary option industry; under current law it's OK to scam people in other countries from Israel, which is becoming an international political embarrassment to Israel.
:::New news item just today. London Daily Mail, "‘I've been naive and stupid': Mother's agony after losing £12.5k through an 'absolute zero-risk' online share trading site to pay for her sons to go to university". There's also a new article from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, "80% Losses Guaranteed - Inside the murky world of binary options trading". That's mostly about SpotOption, which is Banc de Binary's back end service provider. Incidentally, we now seem to have enough reliable sources to improve the article on SpotOption, so I did that.
:::So that's why anything that looks like whitewashing this company is viewed very negatively on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 06:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
::::One possibility here is to move this article to something like ] - there is now lots of info on these - and then just have Banc de Binary redirect to that article. It is, when all is said and done, the biggest in the industry and the poster child of the scammers. ]<sub>(])</sub> 16:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::That seems too general. Right now, the general binary option scams are under ], and per-company scam info is in the company article. Let's see what happens over the next year. The crackdown is intensifying since the Times of Israel expose. The lawsuits and prosecutions in Israel have just started; no court decisions yet. ] (]) 19:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::Yes, I would suggest leaving it be for the time being. ] (]) 19:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not at all against leaving it as is for awhile. But I do think that if BDB cannot remove this article or confuse the issues here, they will eventually just go on with a new company, with a new name (but likely the same offices, same software, same owner, same tactics) ]<sub>(])</sub> 03:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Were that to happen, then it could be revisited. The two articles are not mutually exclusive. If there are ''other'' binary option scams, why not simply create such an article right now? ] (]) 03:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Such a split would separate industry info and scam info, which are closely linked. See this new Globes article.. The binary option industry is 0.7% of Israel's GDP, and that's just the part that pays taxes in Israel. In which article would that go? ] (]) 04:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::Perhaps. At this point the main article contain large amounts of esoteric text, including mathematical formulae that would mean nothing to most readers. Perhaps the best solution is to remove such highly technical and specialized material, so as to give proper weight to controversies, which appear to be the primary aspect of this subject. ] (]) 04:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::As for where the Globes piece should go: good point. There may simply not be enough to sustain two articles, and that might be giving the subject more attention than it deserves. ] (]) 04:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::Maybe the math should go to some article on financial theory. The ] model doesn't really apply to options with lives measured in minutes or hours; the terms related to the time value of money all have insignificant effect. See "Dynamic Hedging: Managing Vanilla and Exotic Options" by ] (the "black swan" guy) . He's writing about options with lives of 30-90 days. He has several chapters on binary option theory. This is advanced material even for finance professionals. Maybe we should just send readers to Talib's book for theory. Incidentally, the theory issue applies to ] and probably should be discussed at ] rather than here. ] (]) 09:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::Agreed. By the way, note my addendum to the COIN report. There is a new binary options spam account. ] (]) 16:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::Also I will look around for more user-friendly sourcing in this realm of article, and caveat-type stories as appropriate. ] (]) 22:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I agree with {{u|Coretheapple}} and {{u|Nagle}} to some extent above; if they "just go on with a new company" as {{u|Smallbones}} implied above, then so be it. It's not Misplaced Pages's intent to fight nor promote such entities. <small>]</small> ]; ] 15:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Right. Misplaced Pages can and should follow the investigative reporting, the lawsuits, and such. If courts and the press say it's a scam, that should be prominently mentioned. But as a secondary source, we have to follow, not lead, in this. However, we could revise the lede so that the bad stuff is mentioned in the first sentence, which Google puts in an info box in search results. Google currently displays "Banc De Binary is a Cypriot and Israeli investment firm trading in binary options on assets including foreign exchange." They stop there. Because of that, the first sentence ought to say something about the scam aspect. ] (]) 20:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::There seems to be a problem with the lede sentence. It says regulatory issues on two continents but I count at least four: Europe (Cyprus), North America (Canada and U.S.), Australia and Asia (Israel). ] (]) 04:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
{{outdent}} I know some of you are already aware, but for the benefit of others, see ]. ] (]) 21:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


== BdB is closing ==
:::::::I'm mentioning all of this to try to ensure that everyone is on the same page about what is and isn't considered advertising. Not every contribution that an editor with a COI in favor of the subject makes is by definition advertising, even if the editor's goal is to minimize negative information about the subject and/or to highlight its virtues. Nor is the removal of negative information, or the insertion of positive information, automatically considered advertising when done by an editor with a COI if those edits are compliant with our policies and guidelines (particularly if those edits ensure that information is ] properly and ] in tone, which may necessitate removing poorly or unsourced negative material or rewording or removing negatively biased content).


See . I know that Finance Magnates is not the very best source. Rather it might be described as a "house organ" of BdB. That just makes it more convincing.
:::::::The point of all that I said is not to defend the COI editors involved here. To the contrary, if their behavior confirms what Misplaced Pages defines as advertising, they ''should'' be censured. But I wanted to be sure that people weren't talking past each other in the midst of this discussion. I have not given my opinion to the RfC or the edit request on this page, ]. -- ''']'''] 20:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


Does anybody know how to get that page properly archived by the usual services? I'd hate to see Finance Magnates disappear and BdB rising from the dead like in an old horror movie. I'll point out something like a prediction I made above about them just disappearing and reappearing as another company. Time to start thinking about that ] article. ] could also use a little work.
== Attempt to gain consensus ==


{{ping|Coretheapple|Nagle|JzG|Brianhe|Pinkbeast}}
Due to the massive amount of comments which are not related to the edit request, I'm creating a new section with the requests.
To make easier to understand, please keep your comments segregated, bullet-ed, and specific to the request. ] (]) 21:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


]<sub>(])</sub> 17:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Currently, I think that focus of this talk page discussion is beginning to derail. If you have a valid, substantiated concern of sock puppetry, please go to ]. Edits that are performed in violation of the conflict of interest policy should be discussed at the appropriate ]. Right now the main focus of this page should be the article's content and sources.


:{{done}} . Archiving is easy. The question is whether this is a usable source. ] (]) 17:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll begin with some of my concerns. Currently the article states: <blockquote>"A 2013 investigation by the British Daily Mail newspaper journalist Tony Hetherington alleged that one client had $25,000 stolen from his bank account after signing up with them."</blockquote> This statement is sourced by a Daily Mail affiliate, which I understand is not a ]. The statement itself is not encyclopedic; we should not be going around and stating every unproven allegation. Some of the sources being used, such as the court documents, are strongly discouraged per our policies on primary sources. (], ]) There are a number of sources being used that do meet our threshold of inclusion. (i.e. Daytradingcoach.com, www.spotoption.com, BinaryOptionsDaily.com, etc.) The sources are promotional themselves and do not have any credible standing. Professional, academic sources need to be used in providing the technical background. This is just a quick highlight of some of the issues at hand. Quite frankly, the sources are grossly problematic and do not adhere to our policies. I really would like a well-thought-out explanation from others as to why they think there is not a problem with the sources. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]
::FM is already in use in the article. The BdB editors used it. I think of it as self-sourced info, it has to be used carefully, and it shouldn't be used for self-promotion, but it can be used. Something like quoting a KKK website to show that they are racist.
</span> 21:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::In any case, don't worry, there will be stories, or at least blurbs, in a half-dozen reliable sources within a few days. ]<sub>(])</sub> 17:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
::: See , and , both citing FM. As an aside is not a reliable source, but with publicity like that from their friends, BdB was not long for this world. (though do be prepared for an attack of the zombies). ]<sub>(])</sub> 17:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
:::: "Was" may be premature. Their site is still up. Via an EU proxy, "Enter the world of Binary Options Trading with a few simple steps. Open an Account with Banc De Binary today" appears. Their alternate site, "bbinary.com", is still up as if nothing is wrong. (That's not unusual. ] and ] went into bankruptcy while operating web sites as if nothing was wrong.) "Announced going out of business" might be more appropriate. We also don't know yet whether this is a clean shutdown with refunds, or a "disappear, take the money and run" deal. Winding this down is going to take a while. ] (]) 18:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
:::::So far as I've been viewing articles on leaprate.com for the past year or so, I have no reason to believe they are an unreliable source. Their reporting is actually pretty good, IMO. That infographic article would be appropriate for an external link. ~] <small>(])</small> 18:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Nagle}} how about "Banc De Binary is or was a Cypriot and Israeli financial firm with a history of regulatory issues on four continents. On January 9, 2017 a company official announced that the company would be closing because of "consistently negative press" coverage. "It's just not worth the tarnished reputation. I don’t see how we can continue operating under such scrutiny and public image," said the official."
::::::The thing is, a financial firm just can't announce that they are closing - it is literally the last thing they want to do. Such an announcement makes their customers nervous and they all want to withdraw their money at the same time, i.e. they'll be causing a "banc run". As far as "will they be returning the customers' money?" well I doubt they will be paying the $2-$3 million that they still owe from the $11 million SEC fine. Can you believe that the SEC let them pay on the installment plan? ]<sub>(])</sub> 19:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
:::::::"Is or was" is fine for now. If this is real, it should be in more sources in a day or two. ]
{{outdent}}
See and . Neither is an RS imho and they rely on Finance Magnates, but the 1st looks like they did a bit of extra research and the 2nd recommends at the end "We recommend you to withdraw all your funds as soon as possible. It would not be the first time when such a company disappears from one day to another without paying back the deposits." (duh) ]<sub>(])</sub> 17:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
: It's now in ], Israel's main business publication, that Banc De Binary is shutting down. So now we have a reliable source. BdB claims to be offering refunds. But they're still in existence as they wind down. What seems to have prompted this were hearings last week for a committee of the ]. Israel is preparing to change the law to shut down the entire binary options industry there. That should be mentioned in the ] article. ] (]) 20:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


::There's , which refers to the Magnates article but appears to include indepdendent confirmation. ] (]) 21:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to make sure that you meant "There are a number of sources being used that do NOT meet our threshold of inclusion." as suggested by the sentence following that statement. I'm not sure why you consider the ] to be unreliable. The article is head and shoulders above the quality of the sources added by the BDB folks. Primary sources are allowed and the SEC and CFTC material is very high quality - there's no chance of misinterpreting it, and it's relevance has been underlined by them being quoted by the WSJ and the Financial Times. So please lose the low quality sources proposed by the BDB folks. Keep the high quality sources including the WSJ, FT, and the CFTC and SEC material. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 01:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


:::I've changed "is or was" to "was" and included the Marker article as a source. I've noticed there that they made a big deal about Shabat being personally responsible for paying the $11 million. Certainly he was part of a "jointly and severally" responsible group. But haven't they paid most of the $11 million? I did notice (as above) that $3 million was to be paid in installments. One question, is the owner of BdB Shabat also the owner of SpotOption? We had that in an old version, with a now dead-link Ukrainian source. ]<sub>(])</sub> 21:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
=== Proposed Versions ===
{{outdent}}
{{collapsetop|Appears to be a repeat of a pre-existing discussion}}
The discussed versions are:


They turned in their Cyprus license . That's all she wrote. ]<sub>(])</sub> 16:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
# Current Version
: More than that, they seem to have left town. Reuters reports a "For Rent" sign on the BDB Tower in Ramat Gan, Israel.. Here's the same place in Google StreetView. They've taken the letters "BDB Tower" off the building's entrance. ] (]) 02:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
# Initial proposal by {{user|BDBJack}} (See: ])
::Despite the announcements of closure and the departure from BDB Tower, the BDB web site is up as if nothing is wrong. Their blog doesn't mention a shutdown.. Something funny may be going on. ] (]) 19:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
# Compromise proposal by {{user|NeilN}} (See: ] with the US SEC and Ontario SC statements from: ])
:::Indeed, but now we have multiple sourcing, with the Reuters article, so that's that I guess. ] (]) 19:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
::::It seems that BdB has a new location and corporate existence. See their site . "OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE: This domain is owned and operated by Ash Ltd. and its affiliated Company to Aster Services Ltd. with Incorporation number: 204033843 address: Sofia 1463, Sofia District, Bulgaria." Also, "© 2017 Ash Ltd. (St. Vincent, Grenadyny)" ] (]) 07:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
:::::Correction: that's not new. That address has been on the site for at least a year. ] (]) 08:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


=== Current Status of Votes === == Very odd story ==


but I believe it. I've seen something earlier in non-reliable sources, but this looks like a reliable source:
'''Non-COI and Non-SPA Editors'''


Current press http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/business/business-news/faking-it-unravelling-fake-news-12468676 "Faking it: Unravelling a fake news story involving Stephen Hawking” ] (UK) January 19, 2017 Mike Scialom taken from the new Feb. edition of Cambridge Business with a small bit of updating. BTW it briefly quotes our article.
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Pro !! Semi-Pro !! Anti
|-
|
* Mike V - poor sourcing in current version
* CorporateM - poor sourcing in current version
||
* NeilN - prior version but with one thing added
||
* Nagle - too much article-churn
* Smallbones - COI behavior
* Figureofnine
|-
|}


]<sub>(])</sub> 14:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC) "Hi Mike!" ]<sub>(])</sub> 15:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
'''COI and SPA Editors'''


==Misplaced Pages in the article?==
{| class="wikitable"
I see from what the IP added that Misplaced Pages, and our very own {{ping|Smallbones}}, are the focus of a Times of Israel article. Shall we add a brief reference of this to the article? My tendency is yes, but briefly. Also the main binary options article. See http://www.timesofisrael.com/wikipedia-vs-banc-de-binary-a-3-year-battle-against-binary-options-fake-news/ ] (]) 14:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
|-
:I certainly wouldn't mind something very short, but it's not for me to say. But perhaps just a link, say under "Further reading"? How about asking {{ping|Nagle}}?
! Pro !! Semi-Pro !! Anti
:I don't see a need for me to quit editing this article entirely however. Somebody put a {{who}} tag in recently about the woman who was still owed $180,000 on the closing date. The ref was one sentence down, so I just copied that ref at the end of the tagged sentence.
|-
:]<sub>(])</sub> 14:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
|
::Yes, something small. And no, certainly no reason for you to quit editing the article (except as it concerns your own editing, and even that is just an excess of caution). ] (]) 16:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
* BDBJack
* Okteriel
||
||
* HistorianofRecenttimes (assumed based on other requests)
|-
|}


== For historical reference only ==
=== Further votes and statements ===


A copy of the article as it existed in January 2013 has been posted (noindexed) to ]. --] &#124; ] 22:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
* '''Pro''' - I am pro stubbing the article to give editors a chance to re-write it in a more neutral tone with citation and consensus. I believe that while the current article may hold relevant information, it was almost entirely created by an SPA editor with bias against the subject, with no consensus. ] (]) 21:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
* '''Against''' any changes right now. This needs to settle down. Also, I have mentioned the "refactoring" of the previous vote into this one on ] as disruption of Misplaced Pages's process. ] (]) 22:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC) :Was there any reason why not simply undelete the 7 deleted edits in the article history? Just curious, since you and I both have the ability to do that. My feeling is, if the article exists and would survive AFD, then all the history should be available unless it's clearly a copyvio. ~] <small>(])</small> 03:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
*'''Against''' any changes and also against further participation in this discussion by the COI editors, who have behaved disruptively. The refactoring of the talk page was ghastly. This discussion should be confined to the non-COI, non-SPA editors. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 22:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
{{collapsebottom}}
:I would encourage everyone to participate in a ]. We don't have to set up a dichotomy of this version or the other. As I suggested above, we should work to improve the content and sourcing of the article. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 23:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


== World News Media and World Finance ==
== Possible sources for information ==


World Finance was an enabler of Banc De Binary, via its vanity awards and consequent promotion of such. Although World Finance's own WP article has been deleted, the article for its publisher ] exists, and there has been ] about content and sourcing there. Additional eyes there would be appreciated. --] (]) 03:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello All,


== Is Banc De Binary back? ==
I would like to propose the following as possible sources of information to be used in building an encyclopedic article:


Either they are back, or someone is using the name and logo again. --] (]) 19:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
* http://www.europeanceo.com/business-and-management/2013/01/the-next-generation-of-financier/ (an article by a 3rd party un-affiliated magazine explaining about the CEO and giving a little history on the company)
* http://forexmagnates.com/banc-de-binary-in-talks-with-cftc-about-us-regulation/ (An article which describes the subjects attempt to gain regulation in the US)
* http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/bluechip-dividends-tipped-to-soar-8458512.html?origin=internalSearch (An article written by the CEO of the subject published by a 3rd party un-affiliated newspaper)


== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion ==
] (]) 23:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: speedy | 2022-11-23T07:21:10.870770 | Oren laurent.jpg -->
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —] (]) 07:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:14, 16 February 2024

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Banc De Binary article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconCompanies Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Companies To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconFinance & Investment Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGambling Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Things you can do

  • Current collaborations:
Improve an article to FA
Improve an article to A
  • Help with the Gambling articles needing attention.
  • Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner.
  • The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.
  • Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
The following Misplaced Pages contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

}}

Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
  1. keep, 4 Jun 2014, see discussion.
  2. keep, 14 May 2014, see discussion.
  3. delete, 13 Jan 2013, see discussion.
The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from Banc De Binary. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material . Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2013081110001911.
This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en(a)wikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Banc De Binary. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Banc De Binary at the Reference desk.

Banc De Binary's corporate structure.

Since the BDB team is very concerned with their corporate structure being described correctly, here is the text from a court order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada:

Defendant Banc de Binary is a Cypriot corporation with a principal place of business on Cyprus’southern shore, in Limassol. (Summons (#58-1) at 1). It is affiliated with three other corporations, Defendants ET Binary Options Ltd., BO Systems, Ltd., and BDB Services, Ltd. (Second. Amend. Compl. (#58) at ¶¶ 4). Although Banc de Binary’s affiliates are incorporated in Israel and the Republic of Seychelles, the companies collectively do business as “Banc de Binary.” (Id . at ¶¶ 4, 13–15).
Banc de Binary was founded in 2010 by Defendant Oren Shabat Laurent, a twenty-nine year old American and Israeli citizen who lives on the outskirts of Tel Aviv. (Id. at ¶ 16); (Pl.’s Serv. Mot. (#43-1) at 3:10–11). He owns fifty percent of Banc de Binary, and is also the sole owner or fifty percent shareholder of ET Binary Options Ltd., BO Systems, Ltd., and BDB Services, Ltd. (Second. Amend. Compl. (#58) at ¶¶ 5, 18, 19, 31).

Source: That's a court order by a judge, not a filing. It reflects what the SEC, the CFTC, and the Federal courts were able to determine. If any of that was wrong, Banc De Binary had a chance to correct it before that order was issued. So that can be treated as a reliable source. I suggest updating the article to match. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

That lucid, plain-language document is clearly usable. It also is important in understanding BDB's motivation to dominate this article, its talk page and allied Misplaced Pages processes. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
You can probably expect it to be disputed on the grounds that the order is a primary source, or at least not sufficiently independent. BDB's answer to the Second Amended Complaint, while not openly contesting ¶ 4 of the SAC (the significant one for the purposes of this article), seems to anticipate making an issue of linking the corporations up. I'm skimming the docket sheet for anything useable, but I doubt there'll be much of anything. If possible, it might be best to attribute the claim that they're all the same company, such as "which the United States SEC has argued includes X, Y and Z". I know that specific wording sucks, but I think that might be better. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Regards, Mendaliv. The court has stated everything correctly (except the relatively immaterial founding date), as this order comes after we had the CFTC amend its incorrect information. This document is also the sister of the document we recommended when User:BDBJack first requested the edit (67 days ago) that Nagle and Figureofnine now espouse, and so there is no problem with the source; there is also a press release from CFTC linked above that does the job as well. Banc De Binary is a common enterprise or group of the four corporations (so it is not formerly known as or also known as any of them), but Banc De Binary, Ltd., is one of the four corporations; and it is important not to misconstrue the court on that point, as it does not say they are the same company or entity, but the same enterprise or group. My edit request appears above and my proposed extended in-text description appears within the #Discussion list collapsed box. BDBIsrael (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so the "former" is probably incorrect, though it leads me to another question. Is the article is about the corporate entity known as Banc De Binary (organized in Cyprus), or about the collective enterprise that the Cypriot corporation—as well as the Israeli and Seychellois organizations—do business as? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
This is not especially complicated nor controversial. Brokerages frequently have related enterprises and they function as one entity, with different corporations in different jurisdictions. "Formerly" in the lead is not correct. I don't know why this was not done, but it appears to be a product of the rather poor editing atmosphere in this article, for which I regret the company has no one to blame but itself. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
This court order is worth reading in full, for those interested. There is reference to the CEO fearing criminal prosecution on p. 4. In the footnote on p. 11, it states that the company's principal place of business is Cyprus. Mendaliv, while this is indisputably a primary source, it contains much of a factual nature that does not require interpretation, so I think passes the test in WP:PRIMARY. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
This is an excellent source. It is clearly independent of the subject, clearly reliable, and as an impartial summary of primary sources, it's equally clearly a secondary source for the stated facts - it's a primary source for the text of the order, but a secondary source for the facts in the Findings Of Fact. If this does not meet WP:RS then it is hard to see what would. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Even for the aspects of the case for which this holding might be a secondary source, I do not believe we can call it reliable. Judicial opinions have little if any editorial (as opposed to judicial) oversight, and in my experience sections on background facts are highly prone to containing nonprejudicial errors (i.e., mistakes with the details that don't affect the outcome of the case). This can be really simple stuff... in writing Collision between MV Testbank and MV Seadaniel, for instance, the multiple judicial opinions in that case differed significantly in the dimensions of the ships, the amount of contaminant that was spilled, and in the treatment of other simple facts... and when compared to the NTSB accident report, they all had some nonprejudicial errors. Indeed, I would argue that the facts not essential to the holding in the instant order should be considered less reliable. In short, there are a lot of problems with using judicial opinions as sources for anything but quotations and textually attributed statements. While I think the statement in the order is probably right, and probably should be included in the article, I just want to make clear that judicial opinions need to be used very carefully. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Even the BDB team says "The court has stated everything correctly (except the relatively immaterial founding date)". So we should be done here. John Nagle (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Since there seems to be consensus, a formal edit request:
  • Delete from lede "formerly known as BO Systems Limited and also known as BDB Services Limited and ET Binary Options Ltd."
  • Add, at beginning of History section,
Banc de Binary is a Cypriot corporation based in Limassol, Cyprus. It is affiliated with ET Binary Options Ltd., BO Systems, Ltd., and BDB Services, Ltd., incorporated in Israel and the Republic of Seychelles. The companies collectively do business as “Banc de Binary". Banc de Binary was founded by Oren Shabat Laurent, a 29 year old (as of 2014) American and Israeli citizen who lives on the outskirts of Tel Aviv. Laurent owns 50% of Banc de Binary, and is also the sole owner or 50% shareholder of ET Binary Options Ltd., BO Systems, Ltd., and BDB Services, Ltd. (Cite to )
That follows the source as closely as possible. John Nagle (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 Done. I agree there seems to be a consensus, and there has been no objection in three days. Is a reduction in protection now advisable? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I recall seeing in one of the BDB rep's walls o' text an objection to the lead sentence referring to the company as "Israeli-Cypriot". Should we remove Israeli? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Well I notice that the most recent article on the subject in a reliable secondary source referencing the company refers to it as a Cypriot company, and so does the court ruling that has been discussed. So I don't see a problem with that. Coretheapple (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 Done as well. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

WSJ on BdB

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

See the last 2 paragraphs at Misplaced Pages Strengthens Rules Against Undisclosed Editing Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Belongs in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree. $10K's a bit special compared to the usual army of minimum-wage freelancers. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree. This enterprise is hardly notable except for its controversial aspects. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Could we have a short sentence about this in? It seems to have been uncontroversial here. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: @Pinkbeast: you need to provide a specific wording, and make sure that wording has consensus, before this can be enacted. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 10:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Guess I'll wait for the page protection to run out (also providing other editors with an opportunity to howl in protest). Thanks anyway. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I propose new section at the bottom, "Paid Editing of Misplaced Pages":
In June 2014, an advertisement on a freelance employment Website offered more than $10,000 for "crisis management" of the BdB page on Misplaced Pages.
Since there has been no reporting of the previous socks, I don't see that we can get it in. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't see this as a separate section. Maybe a sentence. Coretheapple (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I did ponder that given that I have a princely dozen words... but it seems an odd fit in any other section. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
History? Coretheapple (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Banning COI editors from this talk page

Note: This talk section is limited to volunteer editors only.

This talk page is insane. All of the crud introduced by COI editors and responses by volunteers retards the improvement of this article. What's the best way to at least get a respite (6 months?) from the depradations of the COI's? Back to ANI? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Hobbes Goodyear:, please note the discussion underway at WP:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal Coretheapple (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of names from infobox

I have made an edit to this fully-protected article because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the full-protection dispute.

Per OTRS ticket 2014061810015646 initiated by Roy Ogen, I have removed his name from the infobox. He no longer works there, and I confirmed this from his own LinkedIn page.

In the same edit I removed Sarah Fenwick also, per OTRS ticket 2014061810006129 initiated by Ms Fenwick. She also says she no longer works there. Her LinkedIn page confirms that this company is a past client of hers. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

About paid editors on this article

Wouldn't it be accurate to include in this article the informations from independent secondary sources (such as The Wall Street Journal, Al Jazeera or Slate) about the consequences of the actions of the Banc De Binary's paid editors on this article? El Comandante (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It was discussed above, in the context of the WSJ article. I see that AJAM and Slate picked up and repeated the WSJ article, with credit, not really adding much. But yes, definitely, worth mentioning. Coretheapple (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed edit

I intend to remove the sentence which says A 2013 investigation by the British Daily Mail newspaper journalist Tony Hetherington alleged that one client had $25,000 stolen from his bank account after signing up with them. on the basis this is not what the source says (suggesting original research/synthesis), and that in any case, the Daily Mail is not generally considered a reliable source (per discussions above). If there are any objections or someone would like to provide revised wording and sourcing, please list them below. Nick (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

That statement needs work, not deletion. How about this: "Investigations by the British Daily Mail newspaper journalist Tony Hetherington in 2013 and 2014 alleged losses by two clients of Banc de Binary. One client alleged that Banc de Binary had made unauthorized withdrawals from his Lloyds TSB bank account. Lloyds TSB agreed and refunded the client's money. Another Banc de Binary client reported being unable to withdraw funds from Banc de Binary. After being contacted by Hetherington, Banc de Binary refunded the money. John Nagle (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The Daily Mail isn't generally considered a reliable source, is there another source to supplement or replace the DM which could be used ? BDB also insist they and not Lloyds TSB refunded the money of the first client, is there anything to support that, that you're aware of ? Nick (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think one can make that kind of sweeping judgment about the Daily Mail. It is indeed used as a source and I have myself. BDB's side of the story is situated within the article and it can be adjusted to reflect that. Coretheapple (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I feel uncomfortable making statements like this with only one source. I tried and I can't find anything else regarding this particular issue. If this was more than an isolated incident this would have garnered more coverage. I tried looking for mentions of Lloyds TSB and Banc De Binary and found nothing but this story. I found it in several of the Daily Mail subsidiaries, but it was all the same story. I say get rid of it. If we find something more to support the story we can always put it back. Padillah (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, a second source would be optimal. Coretheapple (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The Quebec securities regulator also noted the "bonus lock-in" feature that BdB used to avoid returning customer funds. The Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission recently prohibited Cyprus-based binary option dealers from using "bonuses" to lock up customer funds. There are similar complaints about BdB on scam-oriented blog sites.. This was the subject of one of the Daily Mail stories about a customer who could not withdraw funds. So it's clear enough that BdB was locking in customer funds and had to stop doing that. The Quebec securities regulator item is already in the article, and the Daily Mail article could be used as an example of a customer running into the practice the Quebec regulator noted. John Nagle (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Since the two are connected, then the customer complaint can be moved to that section but as just that - a complaint, and that BDB denied it. That gives the regulatory statement meaning. However, there would have to be a direct connection between the two. As you can see, there is considerable reluctance to use the tabloid as a source. Coretheapple (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Disagree - It's misleading to simply describe The Daily Mail as an unreliable tabloid as this is a well written article which gives adequate weight to the companies response. It doesn't say that Banc de Binary repaid the money. As the money was taken without permission from the account Lloyds TSB were legally obliged to refund it, and they would have taken further steps to find where it had gone. Padillah can do a search for 'Banc de Binary Scam' and they'll find numerous similar things online about Banc de Binary. I'm more uncomfortable about the sudden appearance of Nick announcing this, as it reminds me of CorporateM's also mysterious and sudden appearance to announce Edits. I'd leave it where it is as it is quite fairly stated and previous editors all said it was well sourced.

When are we going to add the detail about Banc de Binary's attempt to pay someone $10k to edit, which hit the press, into the article. Has Sarah Fenwick really left the company, she still seems to be making ahead of the week video reports for them. Can the company really be described as Cypriot and not Cypriot-Israeli bearing in mind that that we already put a link to a photo on this page of their Israeli HQ and that the various affiliated companies all do the same thing, are simply a way of them allowing to trade in different geographical areas such as the EU or outside the EU. As far as I can see ET Binary Options is still based in the Diamond District in Ramat Gan, Israel and it is this building which we put a link to the photo of, which appears to have the Banc de Binary logo on the outside of, this proving they are based there. ET Binary options are still posting job ads for sales reps on their Facebook wall, showing that this is where the calls are made from. Quite telling that they are looking for people who can speak many different languages, as Banc de Binary's site is in this too.HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Ms. Fenwick has left. Her company Jazz Arts & Communications Ltd is producing BDB's videos. The latest video confirms that she is presenting and that it is produced by her company. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
A reliable source is one that has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Wellllll Daily Mail continues to do a fairly good job on a very regular basis of assuring that they do not establish such a reputation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
There is a lot of Daily Mail utilized as sources in various articles, especially on popular culture. I notice that it was just added as a source to Ava Gardner, for instance. I don't mean to defend this tabloid, but I don't believe there is a blanket ban on use of it. Coretheapple (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
while there is no blanket ban (yet), there is certainly also no "default reliable" - particularly on potentially controversial content.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
HistorianofRecenttimes I understand where you're coming from, but the edit/change is in response to a complaint we have received, and it has merit (if it didn't, I wouldn't be here). The word "stolen" does not appear in the reference source so it cannot appear in the sentence in the article that is sourced to the reference, to have it there is original research or synthesis, which we don't permit. If there's a source which says BdB has stolen money, then add that instead. There have been long standing concerns about the reliability of the Daily Mail source, with extensive discussions at the Reliable Sources noticeboard concluding it's generally not to be considered a reliable source (see discussions at 1, 2, 3, 4) which is why I'm asking if there are other sources that could supplement or replace the Daily Mail.
I'm quite happy to mainly leave this to editors with more experience of the topic and knowledge of source material which can be used, but as it stands, the minimum that needs to be done is the sentence containing the word "stolen" needs to be changed to remove the word stolen and to say something along the lines of "a customer complained that BdB withdrew funds from their account without their authority". As I said earlier, if there is another reliable source that specifically states BdB stole money, then add that reference and don't worry about changing the sentence.
I don't think I'm telling you all anything you don't already know or understand, but Banc de Binary, as they're now banned, will be channelling complaints through administrators/OTRS volunteers, and they're likely to continue to flag up every part of the article which doesn't say what they would rather it said, specifically parts of the text which doesn't match the references precisely. I'm almost certainly going to be back with some of the other issues that BdB will almost certainly raise with us, so if regular editors could read through the article, double check all the used references still work (i.e no 404s) and still say what they did when they were first used that would be brilliant. If there any potential issues with references supporting a little original research etc, fixing it now would be enormously helpful. Nick (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that "stolen" needs to go, because it's not in the source. Frankly I think it would have been taken out already if the article was unprotected. I've asked for that, as the reason the article was protected was because of edit warring with BDB socks and corporate accounts, and all are now side-banned. Without them breathing down the necks of volunteers, I think that all article issues can now be amicably addressed, including this one. However I do think semiprotection is wise. Coretheapple (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree that "stolen" is unwarranted. "Withdrew funds from account without authorization" is more like it. See Direct debit#Fraud for an explaination of the process. John Nagle (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Still no word on the unprotection. It only has until July 3 anyway. Coretheapple (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 Done, changed "stolen" to "withdrawal without authorization". It would be easier to alert administrators about these things if the {{editprotected}} tag were used. Fortunately I am monitoring this page.
I can make consensus-based edits to the protected article, as I have above.
I can also reduce the protection level to semi if there is a consensus to do that. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't quite think we have consensus yet, but it's a lot closer now than it was a few weeks ago. Origamite 01:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Given the history, I'd say drop to semi-protection when full protection runs out on July 3. John Nagle (talk) 07:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Or drop it to semi- now. Whether it's unprotected now or in a few days doesn't make much difference I guess. I asked at WP:RPP and was referred to the protecting administrator, who seems off-wiki. Coretheapple (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, I've asked User:HistoryofRecenttimes to voluntarily stand down from the talk page. We don't need partisans from either side breathing down our necks. Coretheapple (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Something went wrong here. Amatulic's edit in response to this request distorted the passage so as to make it say that the journalist claimed BdB took that money from his own account, rather than from some other anonymous complainant. I've removed the sentence for the time being. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Reading the article, I would rewrite the sentence as: A 2013 investigation by the British Daily Mail newspaper journalist Tony Hetherington alleged that Banc de Binary withdrew $25,000 from a British customer's bank account without authorization and refused to return the money when challenged.
Comments? Pinkbeast (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem with that is that the Daily Mail author isn't even in a position to "assert" or "allege" anything at all. He is only reporting what his anonymous informants claims. The journalist had no way of independently verifying what that customer said; he only had his word for it. While it might be debateable whether the Daily Mail as such is or isn't a reliable source, the anonymous individual certainly isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
There are now two alleged victims, so I'm leaning toward saying that the Mail reported two customers losing sums deposited there, and that BDB denied wrongdoing. I wouldn't go much beyond that. Coretheapple (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Ooops. Sorry about mangling that sentence while implementing this edit request. Looks like I left out the key word "client", making it appear like the reporter had lost money. My bad. I restored it with appropriate copyediting and added another citation. Feel free to re-remove it if the sentence and the sources are deemed inappropriate. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I've received an off-Misplaced Pages email from Hetherington. But the Daily Mail's email system added "This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright." So I can't post what he wrote. John Nagle (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, and we'd have to be sure that it isn't original research. I just wanted to amplify a bit a posting I made a bit earlier concerning my reorganization of the article. All the paid editors have been swept out of the article, in a very definitive way. So now the onus is on the volunteer editors to make this as fair as possible. If we don't, if we turn this into a hatchet job, the apologists for paid editors are going to use this as an example of how righteous it is to have paid editing, how terrific it is, what a great thing paid editing is. So please, people, let's bend over backwards to be fair. Coretheapple (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

New Banc de Binary news

There's another article by Tony Hetheringdon of the Daily Mail.. Another victim who thought Banc de Binary was really in the US.

Then there's this: "CySec issues warning to investors about Banc De Binary ancillary website" . It's a blog, which links to another blog with a dead link. so that's useless as a source, but maybe there's a better reference for what, if anything, CySec did. --John Nagle (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the text of the Cyprus SEC warning: . A primary source, but clear as a bell and permitted by WP:PRIMARY. Coretheapple (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
So that's it. CySEC says BDB Services can't operate in Cyprus. "BDB Services Ltd" is, according to BdB itself and the CFTC their unit in the Seychelles. The CFTC also says that corporation has an office in Israel. The Seychelles address, "106 Premier Building Victoria, Seychelles" is also the address of a large number of other businesses and a service for setting up an offshore business. It appears to be a mail drop service of some kind. John Nagle (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


Reorganizing

I've done a bit of reorganizing. As I see it, the main problem was that there was a big chunk of text in the lead describing BDB's regulatory travails. In my opinion that was just banging them over the head too much. So I replaced with a summary sentence and moved it to the "regulatory issues" section. Also I put "products and services" first, so that readers understand what these folks do. Then I merged the "regulation" section, which wasn't necessary and simply needed to be part of the "history" section. There are other issues as well, such as jargon and dense writing. Coretheapple (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh and I took out a line in which the Daily Mail calls them a "betting parlor" or something like that. This is a tabloid and I'm not comfortable with using their characterizations. We have a description from the WSJ already and that will suffice. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Also I should mention that I removed the NPOV tag as there was no talk page discussion to justify it. I think that removing the block of text in the lead on their regulatory issues actually helps a lot in that regard. If anyone wants to of course they can reinstate the tag. Coretheapple (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the history of this article, a "reorganization" which makes BdB look better has to be viewed with scepticism. "The company has a history of regulatory issues on two continents, and was barred from accepting U.S. customers in August 2013." misrepresents what they were doing. They were operating illegally in the United States, (and lying about their location) and they were caught. I'm tempted to revert that whole block of edits. Comments? --John Nagle (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Well I don't know what you mean by "skepticism," but let's discuss what you think the problems are. Reviewing the article it worried me that we were putting so much on the regulatory issues in the lead. but I have an open mind on the subject. Maybe I overdid it. Coretheapple (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Regulatory issues section

I have consolidated all the negative stuff about this company into the "regulatory issues" section. Now, there is no question that this company is notable because of its negative news. I am fully acquainted with the fact that it is barred from doing business in the United States. I know that the Better Business Bureau hates them. I know all that stuff. But I think that we have to condense this section a bit. I could go ahead and boldly do it but I'd like to get some input from everybody about that general concept. I realize that there are some articles that are predominantly negative, and I'm not saying that this article shouldn't be one of them. But I do think that we need to consider carefully a reduction in the size, perhaps omitting some details, of all the negative stuff. Also, as a side issue, we need to fix some of the jargon and wordiness. Comments? Coretheapple (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

BDB is a Fraud company and has been cheating people worldwide including me, I have been cheated 15,000 USD in October 2016. I have filed a case against them with Israel police and Cyprus Police along with Israel Security Authority. BDB is unethical company and makes money by cheating people in the name of investments. Please beware of this money making scams — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKSabbandra (talk • contribs) 09:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I've also archived but if anyone objects <sigh>, go ahead and unarchive and restore the fifty Berlin Walls of text. Coretheapple (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to have more of the "negative stuff" in the lede. This outfit has been booted out of the US and two Canadian provinces for operating illegally, and is facing significant financial penalties if (when) they lose their lawsuit with the CFTC and SEC. That needs to be prominently mentioned. John Nagle (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
But not to the size it formerly had, which also was problematic by not summarizing what was in the body of the article. In fact, I moved it wholesale without causing any duplication. Coretheapple (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I have inserted a phrase into the lead referring to them being charged; I agree with Nagle that it deserved some more prominence. I'm not sure we do need to condense the regulatory issues section much; AFAICT from the outcome of previous AFDs, the company is only notable because of its regulatory issues. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
That said, I think we should lose the two mentions of "more general warnings" about binary options trading. That's pure guilt by association. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I hsve no problem with giving the regulatory issues more prominent play. In fact, if that's what you want, y'all can revert my edits and restore all the stuff I removed from the lead. I was bending over backwards to be fair, and I see that far from being pleased by my removal of all that text from the lead, a BDB editor squawked on his user page that my perfectly reasonable summary sentence was no good. That has kind of dampened my enthusiasm for bending over backwards. Coretheapple (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Others may differ, but I'm not unhappy with where it is now. I will remove those "more general warnings" absent objections. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I have to say that the general warning stuff doesn't bother me, as it puts the regulatory stance toward binary options into perspective. Coretheapple (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Spotoption

Re Huon's recent edit, do you think we might have something about how they provide such services to "other" binary options brokers, leaving out the 170? I agree the text removed was inappropriate, but I think the point that Spotoption (as far as we know) isn't a BdB cutout is significant. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's SpotOption's list of "brands". Banc de Binary is at the top of the list. SpotOption at least hosts the sites and runs the back end. SpotOption offers several levels of affiliation. There's "white label", where they're just a service provider. Then there's SpotOption Exchange, where SpotOption Exchange takes the financial risk and the front organization just drives traffic to them. Banc de Binary is on the SpotOption Exchange customer list, too. SpotOption claims 70% of the binary option market. SpotOption would be worth an article if we could find out more about them. Here's an informal overview of the industry.. There are six back-end providers in the binary options business, with SpotOption by far the largest, with 148 of the 248 known binary option "brokers". (A previous big player was iOption, but they shut down in November, 2013.) John Nagle (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

SEC vs Banc de Binary update

The SEC won an initial summary judgement.. Litigation continues.

There's an "Statement of Uncontroverted Facts in Support of Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission" (case document 79-2) available, but you have to go to Pacer to get it. This comes from depositions of Owen Laurent: "According to Mr. Laurent, he and his father own the Banc de Binary Group. ... Mr. Laurent is the founder, president and chief executive officer of BdB Ltd. ... Mr. Laurent is the 50% shareholder of BdB Ltd; the other 50% shareholder is his father." All the businesses of the BdB group were owned by Laurent and/or his father. We have in the article that Laurent owned 50%; now we know who owns the other half.

Other than Offshore Alert, no press source has picked up on this yet. So it's premature to put this in the article. John Nagle (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources are permissable but need to be used with care. If the document doesn't require interpretation it might be OK. Coretheapple (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The court documents aren't that clear, and some key ones are under seal for now. Updating the article is probably premature, unless there's more press coverage. The case is moving forward to trial some time next year. John Nagle (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
It looks like the court case is finishing up, and a settlement between Banc de Binary, the SEC, and the CFTC is expected by October 25, 2015. So we should have a disposition on that soon. John Nagle (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Settlement period extended to the end of 2015, per Justia. No resolution yet; case still pending. John Nagle (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Another extension, to February 8, 2016. John Nagle (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Case settled. Court order issued. BdB to pay $11 million in restitution and penalties. US customers get refunds. Owen Lawrent pays a personal penalty. Good WSJ source. Added to article. John Nagle (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
PACER link (pay) for the actual settlement document. . The National Futures Association, not Banc De Binary, is administering the refunds. They have BdB's US customer list. One of the minor provisions is that BdB had to agree that "neither they nor any of their agents or employees under their authority or control shall take any action or make any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any allegation in the Complaint, Amended Complaint, or the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in this Consent Order, or creating or tending to create the impression that the Complaint, Amended Complaint and this Consent Order is without a factual basis". John Nagle (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the logo from 'Banc de Binary logo.gif' to 'Banc de Binary Logo.svg'. Thanks McMetrox McMetrox (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN 23:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's not in any way promote the company

I think that the screen shot of bdB's page is not needed in the article, or even the link to its page or logo. BdB is essentially an illegal site in the US because it doesn't even follow the minimal rules for a "financial institution." There's no need for us to promote the company in any way. That would be a gross disservice to our readers. This is up to a consensus of the editors here, of course. There are no rules that say we *must* include this info. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about the screenshot, but I strongly oppose the removal of the logo and the link—those are important pieces of information about the company, useful to readers both for ensuring that they have reached the page they're looking for and for informing them about the company. I don't think there's anything promotional about including a link, a screenshot, and a logo—those are standard pieces of information included in many Misplaced Pages articles about websites. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That violates WP:NPOV. The logo and link are standard elements we try to have, no matter what the organization does. The only exception I can think of for the link is if the organization hosts copyright violations or other illegal materials. --NeilN 16:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Saying that these elements are "standard pieces of information" does not mean that we have to include them. BTW, this organization does host illegal materials. They are closed down in the US without a trial, only because they will not come to the US to give depositions and face trial. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
This isn't "U.S. Misplaced Pages". Many, many companies can't operate in the U.S. for a variety of reasons. --NeilN 17:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this colloquy is about, but I agree the logo is appropriate. But I don't think we need the screenshot, given that many readers can't even access the page in the screenshot! A more appropriate screenshot would be the one US readers see, but that is just a pathway to a self-serving statement. Coretheapple (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
As a US reader, I can access the page in the screenshot. Is there reason to believe that some readers can't? —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
When I click on the link in the infobox I get a statement saying as follows: "Dear Valued Customer, Banc De Binary is voluntarily discontinuing its operations in the United States. The United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission have asserted that Banc De Binary is not permitted to offer its binary option products to U.S. residents without registering with those agencies." The rest of the screen is whited out and there is now way to access it. Coretheapple (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Huh. Well, in that case, maybe we should include the screenshot, in order to illustrate the appearance of the website for readers who can't access it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't care about whether we have a screenshot or not. --NeilN 17:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm OK with the logo but the screenshot is unnecessary. Coretheapple (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
BdB is not "closed down in the US without a trial". They're in court, and have been since at least July of 2013, when the first injunction against them was issued.. Currently, they're arguing over whether BdB will have to disclose the identity of their "confidential ultimate beneficiary owner".. (That's new information; previous info indicated that Owen Laurent and his father were the owners. Apparently there's someone else behind the scenes.) Owen Laurent was deposed, but exercised his Fifth Amendment right not to answer. The SEC and CFTC still want more documents and files from BdB, including their list of US customers. John Nagle (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
As for the screenshot issue, Bank of America doesn't have a screenshot. Wells Fargo Bank doesn't have a screenshot. None of the big brokerages seem to have a screenshot, not even e-Trade. Online gambling doesn't have a screenshot. Online poker does, but it's not identified as a specific company. So why should BdB? John Nagle (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that is a much more cogent argument than the question of legality in certain jurisdictions. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The screenshot has been gone for over a month... --NeilN 18:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Banc De Binary Liverpool Sponsorship

There have been a few sources noting that Banc De Binary has started to sponsor Liverpool F.C:

http://www.financemagnates.com/binary-options/brokers/liverpool-fc-signs-new-one-year-deal-with-banc-de-binary/

https://www.reddit.com/r/LiverpoolFC/comments/3k268e/liverpool_fc_agree_new_partnership_with_banc_de/

http://www.insideworldfootball.com/premier-league/17836-liverpool-land-banc-de-binary-in-new-online-trading-deal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.54.181.221 (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Promotional text from questionable sources? I don't think so. Coretheapple (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Not seeing anything on Liverpool FC's own web site about this. Here's their official merchandise. They sell Liverpool FC T-shirts with a choice of "Standard Chartered", "Garudo Indonesia", or "Carlsberg" logos. No "Banc de Binary" option. But Liverpool FC did do some kind of deal with Banc De Binary. Not clear how much. Maybe anyone can buy a sponsorship at some low level. When they buy "Banc de Binary Stadum", then it's worth mentioning. John Nagle (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Related Florida-based scam

It seems that someone in Florida doing business as Vision Financial Partners was reselling Banc De Binary services in the US. (Also, allegedly, stealing customer funds.) The CFTC has clamped down. BdB is not a named defendant in this one, but allegedly did accept funds from US persons, which they are enjoined against doing. Not worth a mention in the article yet, but worth following for future developments. John Nagle (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello, Please link to our website http://bdbvictims.org We have set up a website to assist people who have been harmed by Banc De Binarys fraudulent activities and have also written a guide to assist them in recovering their funds through chargebacks with their banks.

We have found that a number of forums have removed posts about Banc De Binary and are obviously affiliated with them. We are an independent organisation who are helping people fight fraud. We have also managed to have one of Banc De Binarys affiliates here in Australia http://www.binaryoptions.net.au shutdown by ACORN and the Australian Police. Banc De Binary have now posted on their home page that they no longer offer services to Australians (after their affiliate was shut down and they were trading in Australia without permission) which you have mentioned in the wiki already.

Kind Regards, Cameron Hay Co Founder BDBVictims.org

27.33.250.5 (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. By the same token, we don't allow any sorts of petition sites. Advocacy sites are rarely included unless the site or organization itself is notable enough to merit an article. The lede already notes that they are banned from accepting customers in several countries (including Australia). OhNoitsJamie 15:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Tightened up US enforcement actions section

  • The court case is complete and a permanent injunction is in place, so text was changed to past tense where appropriate.
  • Added link to official court-ordered refund site. (Not a soapbox; that's where US victims can file claims and get refunds.)
  • Consolidated some duplicated material.
  • Moved Cyprus material to new subsection.

John Nagle (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Most of the references are either deadlinks or do not verify the claims. Some are not even a RS. I have tagged such links so it needs an expert attention to fix these references. Beranpolti (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right. It's helpful, though, to try to fix dead links, rather than just flagging them. If the content is in the Internet Archive, you can add "archiveurl" and "archivedate" tags to the citation template, which will fix the link by redirecting to an archived copy. John Nagle (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

keeping unverifiable facts

Can you please discuss why you're insisting to keep the texts which are not verified? --Tianderni (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Please, at least add sources which verify the claims then you can add back the texts. --Tianderni (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

uneditable link to company WP:Elno #7 problem

Banc De Binary
Company typePrivate
IndustryBinary options
Founded2009
Key peopleOren Laurent (CEO)
Abraham 'Abe' Cofnas, Head Analyst

There is a link to the company in the box here, at least when it's on the article page. There are two problems with this WP:ELNO#7 says that links should not be added if they are restricted or unreachable by a large number of editors/readers. This link fits that description.

The second problem is some programing trick that makes this link uneditable. Since I can't edit it - I've removed the whole box. If anybody can explain the programing trick, please let me know. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Ran into something similar on another page a while back. The URL is on Wikidata, not actually in the infobox here, and the infobox is setup to pull the official link from Wikidata if there is no parameter (including a blank one) for the official website. Easy way to fix is just add the parameter for the official website and leave it blank. That said, I would say leave the URL up there. It does give the reader in the US some useful information - they played fast and loose with the rules and are paying the penalty. Ravensfire (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it's a bit of a trick website. Americans can ultimately get through if they try hard enough, So we seem to be helping them break the law. And this site is where they find their victims. So it seems like we're helping to rip off our readers. No thanks! Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Works for me. Ravensfire (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Banc De Binary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed split, moving SEC case to a new article

Someone put a {{split}} tag in the article, proposing splitting out the SEC/CFTC litigation which forced BdB out of the US market. They didn't start a discussion, so I created this location for it. John Nagle (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Hey there! This was done as part of my copy edit specified above, which is still ongoing. The section seemed big enough to warrant a separate article, especially considering the sources available and therefore the case's notability. It's over 30% of the article by word count in case you didn't notice, and the article I put forward is significantly tidier.FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • There's no need for a separate article. All that will do is remove some info from this page where people will see it. I don't think BdB is notable for anything else. They ran a scam in the US, got caught, and lost the slam-dunk lawsuit. The lawsuit info belongs here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I've redirected the forked page to this article's page. If the fork is needed according to consensus, then we can just revert back before the redirect. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No, there is absolutely no justification for a separate article. This is a minor company with a big fat SEC case. Coretheapple (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree all relevant aspects of the lawsuit need to covered. I do believe, however, that there's more to the subject and therefore its article. The company appears to have legal standing in the European Union, for example, and there's information available about its dealings, etc. Words such as "scam" (even though it might be tempting to simplify it as such) do not help improve the encyclopaedic quality of Misplaced Pages. In my consideration of WP:BALANCE, WP:Neutrality, WP:Controversy sections and WP:SPLIT, a section such as this might be a prime candidate for forking given the balance of the current article. What are your thoughts on this? Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Reminder

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. Unfortunately these pages have had lots of paid editing (both declared and undeclared) and lots of disruption has resulted from that. Just one possible example is the edits to the article in August 2016 made by SPAs who got themselves banned.

Paid editing problems for this article go much beyond that, however. The subject of the article has signed a settlement, which has been approved by the court, paying about $11 million to settle the charges *and* agreeing not to solicit US customers *even indirectly*. I believe that removing material from this article could be viewed as as indirectly soliciting US customers. In short paid editing of this article is a real can of worms. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

And I should add that BDB accounts are site banned per ANI Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

There appear to have been instances of undisclosed COI editing; I'm assuming the latest string of edits by Beranpolti back in August were an example of that. Going through the article as it stands I'm inclined to observe the most glaring issues being poor quality sources and prose. I do not see widespread promotional issues or other common symptoms of paid editing, do you? Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I do see a promotion problem with this article going back several years. The main problem is that there are all sorts of sources in the article. The reliable sources effectively say that BDB is a scam, the unreliable sources pretend that they are not a scam, but have some non-scam business. So we are presenting a scam as if they are in some way a normal business. That's a very harmful promotion. Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
This article had some of the worst COI problems in Misplaced Pages history. See, as Smallbones points out, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive844#Banc_de_Binary.2C_Round_2. Anyone new to editing this article should read that. At one point, the company offered $10,000 to anyone who could "fix" the article to not be so critical. Thus, there's a degree of suspicion associated with edits that delete verified negative info about the company.
In some ways, the company is worse than the Misplaced Pages article indicates. The Times of Israel series, "The Wolves of Tel Aviv", while not specific to Banc de Binary, gives an overview. 97% of binary option customers lose all their money..
The only reason that Banc de Binary can operate in Europe at all is because the European Union allows financial entities licensed in one EU country to operate in all the others. Cyprus is willing to let binary options companies operate, and they then sell into the rest of the EU. There's a plan to crack down on this as part of MiFID II, the EU's new financial regulation scheme, which was supposed to take effect January 3, 2017, but has been postponed a year. The Israeli Knesset has a bill in the works to crack down on the binary option industry; under current law it's OK to scam people in other countries from Israel, which is becoming an international political embarrassment to Israel.
New news item just today. London Daily Mail, "‘I've been naive and stupid': Mother's agony after losing £12.5k through an 'absolute zero-risk' online share trading site to pay for her sons to go to university". There's also a new article from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, "80% Losses Guaranteed - Inside the murky world of binary options trading". That's mostly about SpotOption, which is Banc de Binary's back end service provider. Incidentally, we now seem to have enough reliable sources to improve the article on SpotOption, so I did that.
So that's why anything that looks like whitewashing this company is viewed very negatively on Misplaced Pages. John Nagle (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
One possibility here is to move this article to something like Binary option scams - there is now lots of info on these - and then just have Banc de Binary redirect to that article. It is, when all is said and done, the biggest in the industry and the poster child of the scammers. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
That seems too general. Right now, the general binary option scams are under Binary option, and per-company scam info is in the company article. Let's see what happens over the next year. The crackdown is intensifying since the Times of Israel expose. The lawsuits and prosecutions in Israel have just started; no court decisions yet. John Nagle (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I would suggest leaving it be for the time being. Coretheapple (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not at all against leaving it as is for awhile. But I do think that if BDB cannot remove this article or confuse the issues here, they will eventually just go on with a new company, with a new name (but likely the same offices, same software, same owner, same tactics) Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Were that to happen, then it could be revisited. The two articles are not mutually exclusive. If there are other binary option scams, why not simply create such an article right now? Coretheapple (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Such a split would separate industry info and scam info, which are closely linked. See this new Globes article.. The binary option industry is 0.7% of Israel's GDP, and that's just the part that pays taxes in Israel. In which article would that go? John Nagle (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps. At this point the main article contain large amounts of esoteric text, including mathematical formulae that would mean nothing to most readers. Perhaps the best solution is to remove such highly technical and specialized material, so as to give proper weight to controversies, which appear to be the primary aspect of this subject. Coretheapple (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
As for where the Globes piece should go: good point. There may simply not be enough to sustain two articles, and that might be giving the subject more attention than it deserves. Coretheapple (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the math should go to some article on financial theory. The Black-Scholes model doesn't really apply to options with lives measured in minutes or hours; the terms related to the time value of money all have insignificant effect. See "Dynamic Hedging: Managing Vanilla and Exotic Options" by Nassim Taleb (the "black swan" guy) . He's writing about options with lives of 30-90 days. He has several chapters on binary option theory. This is advanced material even for finance professionals. Maybe we should just send readers to Talib's book for theory. Incidentally, the theory issue applies to Binary option and probably should be discussed at Talk:Binary option rather than here. John Nagle (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. By the way, note my addendum to the COIN report. There is a new binary options spam account. Coretheapple (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Also I will look around for more user-friendly sourcing in this realm of article, and caveat-type stories as appropriate. Coretheapple (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Coretheapple and Nagle to some extent above; if they "just go on with a new company" as Smallbones implied above, then so be it. It's not Misplaced Pages's intent to fight nor promote such entities. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Right. Misplaced Pages can and should follow the investigative reporting, the lawsuits, and such. If courts and the press say it's a scam, that should be prominently mentioned. But as a secondary source, we have to follow, not lead, in this. However, we could revise the lede so that the bad stuff is mentioned in the first sentence, which Google puts in an info box in search results. Google currently displays "Banc De Binary is a Cypriot and Israeli investment firm trading in binary options on assets including foreign exchange." They stop there. Because of that, the first sentence ought to say something about the scam aspect. John Nagle (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with the lede sentence. It says regulatory issues on two continents but I count at least four: Europe (Cyprus), North America (Canada and U.S.), Australia and Asia (Israel). Brianhe (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I know some of you are already aware, but for the benefit of others, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_to_ban_FoCuSandLeArN_due_to_undisclosed_paid_editing. SmartSE (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

BdB is closing

See . I know that Finance Magnates is not the very best source. Rather it might be described as a "house organ" of BdB. That just makes it more convincing.

Does anybody know how to get that page properly archived by the usual services? I'd hate to see Finance Magnates disappear and BdB rising from the dead like in an old horror movie. I'll point out something like a prediction I made above about them just disappearing and reappearing as another company. Time to start thinking about that Binary option scams article. SpotOption could also use a little work.

@Coretheapple, Nagle, JzG, Brianhe, and Pinkbeast:

Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done . Archiving is easy. The question is whether this is a usable source. Coretheapple (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
FM is already in use in the article. The BdB editors used it. I think of it as self-sourced info, it has to be used carefully, and it shouldn't be used for self-promotion, but it can be used. Something like quoting a KKK website to show that they are racist.
In any case, don't worry, there will be stories, or at least blurbs, in a half-dozen reliable sources within a few days. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
See in Italian, and in Czech, both citing FM. As an aside The History of Binary Options Trading – Infographic JANUARY 5, 2017 is not a reliable source, but with publicity like that from their friends, BdB was not long for this world. (though do be prepared for an attack of the zombies). Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
"Was" may be premature. Their site is still up. Via an EU proxy, "Enter the world of Binary Options Trading with a few simple steps. Open an Account with Banc De Binary today" appears. Their alternate site, "bbinary.com", is still up as if nothing is wrong. (That's not unusual. Better Place and Hanjin went into bankruptcy while operating web sites as if nothing was wrong.) "Announced going out of business" might be more appropriate. We also don't know yet whether this is a clean shutdown with refunds, or a "disappear, take the money and run" deal. Winding this down is going to take a while. John Nagle (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
So far as I've been viewing articles on leaprate.com for the past year or so, I have no reason to believe they are an unreliable source. Their reporting is actually pretty good, IMO. That infographic article would be appropriate for an external link. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nagle: how about "Banc De Binary is or was a Cypriot and Israeli financial firm with a history of regulatory issues on four continents. On January 9, 2017 a company official announced that the company would be closing because of "consistently negative press" coverage. "It's just not worth the tarnished reputation. I don’t see how we can continue operating under such scrutiny and public image," said the official."
The thing is, a financial firm just can't announce that they are closing - it is literally the last thing they want to do. Such an announcement makes their customers nervous and they all want to withdraw their money at the same time, i.e. they'll be causing a "banc run". As far as "will they be returning the customers' money?" well I doubt they will be paying the $2-$3 million that they still owe from the $11 million SEC fine. Can you believe that the SEC let them pay on the installment plan? Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
"Is or was" is fine for now. If this is real, it should be in more sources in a day or two. John Nagle

See Forex Brokerz and HowWeTrade. Neither is an RS imho and they rely on Finance Magnates, but the 1st looks like they did a bit of extra research and the 2nd recommends at the end "We recommend you to withdraw all your funds as soon as possible. It would not be the first time when such a company disappears from one day to another without paying back the deposits." (duh) Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It's now in TheMarker, Israel's main business publication, that Banc De Binary is shutting down. So now we have a reliable source. BdB claims to be offering refunds. But they're still in existence as they wind down. What seems to have prompted this were hearings last week for a committee of the Knesset. Israel is preparing to change the law to shut down the entire binary options industry there. That should be mentioned in the Binary options article. John Nagle (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
There's this, which refers to the Magnates article but appears to include indepdendent confirmation. Coretheapple (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I've changed "is or was" to "was" and included the Marker article as a source. I've noticed there that they made a big deal about Shabat being personally responsible for paying the $11 million. Certainly he was part of a "jointly and severally" responsible group. But haven't they paid most of the $11 million? I did notice (as above) that $3 million was to be paid in installments. One question, is the owner of BdB Shabat also the owner of SpotOption? We had that in an old version, with a now dead-link Ukrainian source. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

They turned in their Cyprus license . That's all she wrote. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

More than that, they seem to have left town. Reuters reports a "For Rent" sign on the BDB Tower in Ramat Gan, Israel.. Here's the same place in Google StreetView. They've taken the letters "BDB Tower" off the building's entrance. John Nagle (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Despite the announcements of closure and the departure from BDB Tower, the BDB web site is up as if nothing is wrong. Their blog doesn't mention a shutdown.. Something funny may be going on. John Nagle (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, but now we have multiple sourcing, with the Reuters article, so that's that I guess. Coretheapple (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems that BdB has a new location and corporate existence. See their site . "OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE: This domain is owned and operated by Ash Ltd. and its affiliated Company to Aster Services Ltd. with Incorporation number: 204033843 address: Sofia 1463, Sofia District, Bulgaria." Also, "© 2017 Ash Ltd. (St. Vincent, Grenadyny)" John Nagle (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Correction: that's not new. That address has been on the site for at least a year. John Nagle (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Very odd story

but I believe it. I've seen something earlier in non-reliable sources, but this looks like a reliable source:

Current press http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/business/business-news/faking-it-unravelling-fake-news-12468676 "Faking it: Unravelling a fake news story involving Stephen Hawking” Cambridge News (UK) January 19, 2017 Mike Scialom taken from the new Feb. edition of Cambridge Business with a small bit of updating. BTW it briefly quotes our article. Feb Cambridge Business p.8

Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC) "Hi Mike!" Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages in the article?

I see from what the IP added that Misplaced Pages, and our very own @Smallbones:, are the focus of a Times of Israel article. Shall we add a brief reference of this to the article? My tendency is yes, but briefly. Also the main binary options article. See http://www.timesofisrael.com/wikipedia-vs-banc-de-binary-a-3-year-battle-against-binary-options-fake-news/ Coretheapple (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't mind something very short, but it's not for me to say. But perhaps just a link, say under "Further reading"? How about asking @Nagle:?
I don't see a need for me to quit editing this article entirely however. Somebody put a tag in recently about the woman who was still owed $180,000 on the closing date. The ref was one sentence down, so I just copied that ref at the end of the tagged sentence.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, something small. And no, certainly no reason for you to quit editing the article (except as it concerns your own editing, and even that is just an excess of caution). Coretheapple (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

For historical reference only

A copy of the article as it existed in January 2013 has been posted (noindexed) to Talk:Banc de Binary/Deleted version. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Was there any reason why not simply undelete the 7 deleted edits in the article history? Just curious, since you and I both have the ability to do that. My feeling is, if the article exists and would survive AFD, then all the history should be available unless it's clearly a copyvio. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

World News Media and World Finance

World Finance was an enabler of Banc De Binary, via its vanity awards and consequent promotion of such. Although World Finance's own WP article has been deleted, the article for its publisher World News Media exists, and there has been discussion about content and sourcing there. Additional eyes there would be appreciated. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Is Banc De Binary back?

Either they are back, or someone is using the name and logo again. --John Nagle (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Categories: