Understand the five weighted dimensions, baseline values and unassessed items. Check entity scope and original evidence instead of treating a score as a safety probability.
An FXCN broker score organizes verification leads. It is not regulatory certification, a forecast of successful withdrawals or a position-size recommendation. A brand-level score cannot automatically describe every group entity or prove that a website, support contact or recipient belongs to that brand.
Start with the contracting entity, then examine dimensions and data coverage, open the evidence and check the relevant account category. Only then compare totals. A high number without the right scope does not replace these checks.
The following describes the current FXCN v1 rules. Dimensions are bounded between 0 and 100, combined using fixed weights and rounded to two decimals. The interface may display fewer decimal places. See the scoring methodology for more detail.
| Dimension | Weight | What to examine | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regulation | 30% | Licence status, register evidence, confirmed actions and the matching entity | Identical permissions for every group company |
| Risk controls | 20% | Scope of fund arrangements, negative balance protection, compensation and margin terms | No trading losses or guaranteed compensation |
| Transparency | 20% | Operating and registration details, ownership and report leads | Completion of an independent financial audit |
| Reputation | 20% | Published-review sample size, content and representativeness | Verification of every review or future outcomes |
| Disclosure | 10% | Risk documents, historical cost information and order-handling disclosures | Independent proof of everything stated in a document |
Total = regulation × 0.30 + risk × 0.20 + transparency × 0.20 + reputation × 0.20 + disclosure × 0.10. These are the site's analytical categories, not a universal statutory grading system.
The following is fictional. It does not describe a real broker or a probability of safety.
| Dimension | Example score | Weight | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regulation | 80 | 30% | 24 |
| Risk controls | 70 | 20% | 14 |
| Transparency | 60 | 20% | 12 |
| Reputation | 50 | 20% | 10 |
| Disclosure | 90 | 10% | 9 |
| Total | — | 100% | 69 |
If regulation alone falls from 80 to 60, the total falls by 20 × 30% = 6, to 63, not by 20. A 20-point disclosure improvement adds only 2 total points. Always account for the weight.
Each dimension starts at a baseline of 50, receives rule-item adjustments and is bounded to 0–100. Confirmed regulatory-action deductions are applied after the first cap. For example, a hypothetical baseline-plus-licence sum of 170 is capped at 100 before a hypothetical −30 action adjustment gives 70. Subtracting first and then capping at 100 would produce a different answer. This illustrates order of operations, not a fixed penalty for every action.
In v1, a dimension without qualifying assessment items can remain at the baseline of 50. That baseline may still contribute to the weighted total. It is not an observed average-quality result. Read unassessed labels and coverage notices alongside the number.
With fewer than five published reviews, the reputation rule does not adjust the baseline using their average. Reaching the count threshold does not establish a representative sample. Publication does not mean that every experience has been independently verified. Extreme reviews, repeated accounts of one event and self-selection can affect how useful the sample is.
Data in all five dimensions does not establish that every important fact was checked. Coverage describes scoring items, not audit completeness or statistical confidence. Distinguish missing evidence, conflicting evidence and independently checked facts.
| Numerical condition | Current v1 colour rule | Further checks |
|---|---|---|
| Total at least 85 | Green if dimensions considered for downgrade are all at least 60; otherwise yellow | Unassessed dimensions and account-entity mismatch |
| Total at least 60 but below 85 | Usually yellow; red when regulation is below 30 | Specific regulatory records and their sources |
| Total at least 30 but below 60 | Orange | Contributing dimensions and missing information |
| Total below 30 | Red | Original evidence, not a presumption of illegality |
Downgrade checks normally consider dimensions with qualifying non-zero scoring items. If none qualify, all dimensions are considered. Neither colour nor coverage is a separate guarantee. Rounded display values may also hide the exact boundary used in calculation.
Continue with the official-register guide. A real brand and real licence can still be impersonated by a clone website.
Compare the same algorithm version, similar evidence dates and equivalent subjects. Then compare dimensions, gaps and protections relevant to your account. A two-point lead is not proof that one broker has lower fund risk: the score is not a calibrated default-probability model.
For a mismatch, use the contact page and include the broker-page URL, exact scoring item, official source link, source date, conflict and scope needing review. Do not publish identity documents, account credentials or trading passwords. A request requires verification; submission does not automatically change a score.
Does 85 mean 85% safe? No. It is a weighted result, not a probability.
Does a high score guarantee a withdrawal? No. The agreement, identity, trade and payment circumstances require separate handling.
Does a low score prove illegality? No. Legal findings require appropriate authority and evidence. Scores can identify questions to investigate.
Why might an unassessed dimension show a number? v1 has baseline values. Read the unassessed notice rather than treating missing data as a measurement.