How we research every review

Every broker or platform review on Reclaim DC is built from verifiable evidence, not opinion. We follow the same checklist for each one, and we say plainly when something cannot be confirmed.

1. Regulatory status

We search the public registers of major financial authorities — the FCA (UK), ASIC (Australia), CySEC (Cyprus), BaFin (Germany), CFTC/NFA (US), FSCA (South Africa) and others relevant to the platform — for its authorisation status, and we record any official public warnings.

2. Corporate transparency

We look for a named legal entity, a registration number, a registered address and real contact details, and whether those can be independently verified.

3. Domain and infrastructure

We check the domain’s registration date and history using public WHOIS / RDAP records. A very newly registered domain behind a brand claiming an established operation is a documented risk indicator.

4. User-reported patterns

We weigh the pattern of complaints across independent review platforms — for example repeated withdrawal problems — rather than relying on any single post.

5. Marketing claims

We flag guaranteed-return promises, “AI signal” claims and high-pressure sales tactics.

Our language standard

We report what is verifiable and clearly hedge what is not — using terms such as “could not verify” or “high-risk indicator” — rather than asserting criminal conduct as fact.

Sources and dates

Each review cites its sources and the date it was checked, because a platform’s regulatory status can change over time.

Who reviews our content

Our broker and platform reviews are researched and edited by David Sanders, a Licensed Fraud Investigation Agent whose background includes the Investor Protection Unit at Pinkerton, and who leads editorial at Reclaim DC. Every review follows this methodology and our Editorial Standards.