A supervisory file starts with a legal name. Registers in Europe are indexed by the firm, not by the campaign it is running this month, which is why the first line of every file on this site is a company name copied out of somebody's terms and conditions. The line for Model Maxalt Opt is blank, and everything below follows from that blank line rather than from anything we think about the product.
What is Model Maxalt Opt, according to the people promoting it?
Promotional material presents the service as trading software that opens and closes positions on a funded account with little input from the user. That description comes from the seller and has not been tested by us or, as far as the registers show, by a supervisor.
Pros
- The product category is stated plainly in the marketing, which makes the claim easy to test against a register
- Registration is presented as free of charge, by the operator's own account
The points above summarise what the operator says about its own platform. We have not verified them.
Cons
- No authorisation record exists under this name in the European registers we searched
- No legal entity is named anywhere a reader could check it
- No supervisor is identified, so no complaints body has jurisdiction on the face of it
What the operator puts in writing
The promotional pages describe software that trades a funded account with minimal involvement from its owner. Signing up is presented as quick, and the cost of signing up is presented as nothing. We record that as the seller speaking about the seller's product, which is the only status such a description can have until a third party has examined it.
What the pages do not contain is the material a supervisor would expect to see published: the name of the firm, the address it answers letters at, the authority it answers to, and the reference number under which it does so. Their absence is not a technicality. In every European jurisdiction we work with, a firm offering investment services has to identify itself to the people it is soliciting.
Authorisation: the register search
We searched the European and national authorisation databases listed on our sources page for the brand, for its separate words, and for the obvious spellings a filing clerk might have used. Nothing came back that could be matched to this service on the date printed in the verdict card above.
Two readings of that result are honest. The first is that no supervised firm operates the brand. The second is that a supervised firm does operate it under a different registered name and has simply not told anyone which. The second reading is not comforting, because the reader who needs the information is exactly the reader who cannot obtain it.
Warning lists and public notices
Alongside their registers, European authorities publish lists of firms they have decided to warn the public about. We checked those lists as well and found no entry for this name.
It is worth being precise about what that absence means, because readers often reverse it. A warning list is a record of cases an authority has investigated and acted on. Names arrive there after complaints, publicity or supervisory work, and most brands never arrive there at all, including brands that deserve to. Not being on a warning list tells you nothing about a platform. Being on one tells you a great deal.
Clones, tied agents and borrowed passports
Some unlicensed operations do not ignore the register, they lean on it. The three common shapes are the clone, which borrows the name and number of a genuinely authorised firm; the tied agent claim, which presents an introducer relationship as if it were an authorisation; and the passport claim, which points at a licence held in one member state and implies it covers services it does not cover.
We found no evidence of any of the three here, because we found no reference to a regulator at all. That puts this brand in the plainest category we deal with: a service that does not engage with the supervisory system in either direction.
Where client money would have to sit
Any money you transfer has to arrive somewhere, and in a supervised arrangement the answer is written down. Client funds are held at a named credit institution, kept apart from the firm's own money, and covered by the investor compensation scheme of the country where the firm is authorised.
None of that is described anywhere on the pages we read. There is no custodian, no segregation statement and no compensation scheme reference. A reader who deposits is therefore relying on the good behaviour of a party they cannot name, with no scheme standing behind the balance shown on the screen.
If a withdrawal stalls
Complaints in the European system are routed by authorisation. You complain to the firm, and if the answer does not satisfy you, you escalate to the supervisor that authorised it or to the ombudsman attached to that supervisor. Both steps need the firm to be identified and supervised.
Without a register entry, that path does not open. What remains is the payment channel. A card payment may be disputed with your bank under the scheme rules that apply to it, and a bank transfer can be reported, though funds sent by transfer are rarely recovered. Reporting the brand to your national authority is still worth doing, because warning lists are built out of exactly those reports.
Run the search yourself
Every step we took is public, free and repeatable in about a quarter of an hour.
- Open the terms and conditions and the imprint page of the platform and copy out any company name, number or address.
- Search the national company register of the country named there for that name.
- Search the authorisation database of that country's financial supervisor, then the European register, for the same name.
- Search the warning lists of at least three European authorities for the brand and for the company name.
- Write down the date of each search. A register answer is only true for the day you asked.
If step one produces nothing to copy, the remaining steps have no input, and that result is itself the finding.
Check it yourself
These registers are public and free. If a platform claims a licence you cannot find here, treat the claim as false.
File status and what would reopen it
This file is open and unresolved. We would rewrite it on the same day that any of the following appeared: a named operating company in the platform's own documents, an authorisation entry in any European register matching the service, a tied agent listing under a supervised firm, or a notice published by an authority naming the brand. Readers who find any of those before we do are welcome to send the reference, and we will check it against the source rather than take it on trust.
Questions from the mailbox
Does an empty register result mean Model Maxalt Opt is a scam?
No, and we will not write that. It means the name does not appear as an authorised firm in the databases we searched. Registers are indexed by legal entity, so a brand can be absent because the operating company trades under a different name. The problem is that nobody has published which name that would be.
Which registers did you search?
The European and national authorisation databases and warning lists listed on our sources page, searched by brand name and by the closest variants of it. Each of them is public and free, and the sources page links to every one so you can repeat the search.
Is a licence in any EU country enough to trade safely?
An authorisation tells you that a named firm is supervised, that it has to meet capital and conduct rules, and that a complaints route exists. It is not a guarantee against losses, and leveraged products remain capable of taking more from you than you planned to risk.
What should I do before depositing money with a brand like this one?
Find the legal name in the terms and conditions, then look it up in the register of the country named there. If the terms name no company, the check is already finished, because there is nothing to look up and nobody to complain to later.