Alpaca has completed its acquisition of UK investment infrastructure firm WealthKernel and launched European equities trading this week, putting the US broker-dealer in direct competition with Berlin-based Upvest in the region's brokerage infrastructure market.Singapore Summit: Meet the largest APAC brokers you know (and those you still don't!)WealthKernel, which holds UK and Spanish regulatory permissions and has built its business around tax-advantaged accounts like Individual Savings Accounts and Self-Invested Personal Pensions, will now trade as Alpaca Europe. Alpaca Europe Takes Shape With Shanmugarajah at the HelmKaran Shanmugarajah, WealthKernel's chief executive, has been named CEO of Alpaca Europe and will run the regional business. The rest of the WealthKernel team has joined Alpaca, bringing what Shanmugarajah described as "local regulatory expertise with global, API-driven infrastructure" into the combined company.Founded in 2015, WealthKernel operates from London, Nottingham and Madrid, and sells an embedded investing stack to neobanks, wealth managers and trading apps that want to add investing products without building their own compliance and custody layers.[#highlighted-links#] Alpaca comes into Europe on the back of a busy 18 months. The New York-headquartered firm closed a $150 million Series D at a $1.15 billion valuation in January, added Nasdaq exchange membership last October and picked up options and Treasury clearing memberships earlier this year to cut out third-party intermediaries. The company says it now powers more than 10 million brokerage accounts across hundreds of fintechs and institutions in more than 40 countries.Xetra Goes Live, Euronext and LSE to FollowSeparately from the acquisition, Alpaca flipped the switch on European equities trading. The first venue is Germany's Xetra exchange, with Euronext markets and the London Stock Exchange expected to follow. The company said partners can access multiple markets through a single API integration, while Alpaca handles execution, custody and settlement through unnamed global financial institutions.The launch gives Alpaca's existing US clients a way to route cross-border flow without connecting to separate European brokers, and gives European fintechs and banks a path to US equities, options and fixed income through the same pipe. Alpaca has pushed this cross-border angle before, most visibly when it launched a tokenisation platform for US stocks in October. The company claims a 94% share of tokenised US equities and ETFs referenced in that effort, though it has not disclosed the methodology behind the figure or the total market size being measured.Yoshi Yokokawa, Alpaca's chief executive and co-founder, framed the European build-out as a complexity play. He said the combined setup is aimed at "reducing the complexity of cross-border investing" for institutions launching regulated products across multiple jurisdictions.Competitive Push Into Upvest's BackyardEuropean brokerage infrastructure is not an empty market. The leader sits around 900 kilometers east of Alpaca Europe's London base. Berlin-based Upvest, founded in 2017, raised $125 million last month at a €640 million valuation in a round led by Sapphire Ventures and Tencent, with CEO Martin Kassing telling Bloomberg at the time that the firm was targeting more than €100 million in annualized revenue and profitability within 24 months. Upvest says it processed over 100 million orders in 2025, up from 20 million the year before.Upvest's client list reads like a roll call of European retail finance, including Revolut, N26, bunq, Webull, Raisin, DKB and Santander's Openbank. In the past six months it has added IG Group, which went live with French equities trading on Upvest's rails in November, and CMC Markets, which will use Upvest to launch multi-currency cash equities trading in Germany this autumn. Upvest also faces competition from US-based DriveWealth and Danish multi-asset broker Saxo Bank, both of which sell white-label trading stacks to banks and fintechs.Alpaca's pitch differs from Upvest's on one important dimension. Where Upvest's core franchise is European retail investing plumbed into local tax wrappers, Alpaca is selling a two-sided bridge, with US self-clearing infrastructure on one side and newly acquired European licenses on the other. Alpaca's chief technology officer, Juha Ristolainen, joined from Upvest last year after five years as its co-founder and CTO.BNP Paribas Backing Signals Strategic InterestThe acquisition also closes with institutional backing from one of Europe's largest banks. BNP Paribas, through its venture arm Opera Tech Ventures, participated in Alpaca's January Series D, and Managing Director Vincent Baillin said the bank was "excited to support Alpaca's growing presence in Europe." Alpaca has been expanding in other regions at the same time. It announced plans in January to acquire Zincmoney IFSC, a broker-dealer licensed in India's GIFT City special financial zone, subject to regulatory approval. The India move, combined with the WealthKernel closing and the European equities launch, gives the company live or pending regulated operations in the US, UK, EU and India inside a six-month window. This article was written by Damian Chmiel at www.financemagnates.com.

London, UK, 22 April 2026 - OpenPayd, a leading provider of financial infrastructure, has been selected by global cryptocurrency exchange CEX.IO to underpin its fiat payment operations and institutional settlement activity across its global platform.CEX.IO supports 15 million retail and professional users worldwide, where managing liquidity across jurisdictions creates operational complexity. For institutional participants in particular, settlement reliability is as important as execution quality. Through OpenPayd’s infrastructure, CEX.IO has introduced multi-currency accounts in EUR, GBP, and USD, alongside integrated FX capabilities, enabling more efficient treasury management and streamlined movement of funds across its global operations.Within this framework, EUR payment flows are supported via SEPA and SEPA Instant, giving CEX.IO access to near real-time settlement for euro-denominated transactions. By consolidating these flows within a single environment, CEX.IO gains a unified treasury view, supporting faster reconciliation, seamless settlement, and greater control as volumes and counterparty relationships scale.The integration is designed to simplify how funds move across CEX.IO’s global operations. Rather than relying on fragmented banking relationships, CEX.IO can now route deposits, withdrawals, and internal treasury flows through a unified infrastructure, delivering faster, more consistent settlement for institutional and corporate clients.Iana Dimitrova, CEO at OpenPayd, said: “CEX.IO operates at a global scale, with institutional clients who expect consistency across every touchpoint. The infrastructure underpinning that consistency is what allows exchanges to compete seriously for institutional flow. By choosing OpenPayd and consolidating fiat settlement into a single environment, CEX.IO is building the operational foundation required to support its next phase of growth.”Arina Dudko, Head of Corporate Payment Solutions at CEX.IO, said: “Institutional participants increasingly expect crypto platforms to match the speed, reliability, and transparency of traditional financial systems. This integration reflects our focus on closing that gap. By embedding OpenPayd’s real-time EUR settlement and unified treasury capabilities, we’re aligning our infrastructure with the standards institutions are used to—while preserving the flexibility of digital asset markets.” This collaboration reflects a broader shift in how digital asset exchanges are approaching fiat infrastructure. As institutional participation in crypto markets deepens, the ability to deliver regulated, real-time EUR settlement across a complex entity structure - without the friction of fragmented banking arrangements - is an increasingly important operational capability. Through OpenPayd's regulated infrastructure, CEX.IO can extend that capability as its institutional business continues to scale.About CEX.IOCEX.IO, a crypto industry pioneer since 2013, began as the GHash.IO mining pool, which mined over 583K bitcoins. After nearly reaching 51% of Bitcoin's mining power, the platform voluntarily scaled back mining capacity, shifting its focus to trading. Since then, CEX.IO has grown into a comprehensive platform with over 15M registered users, offering services for buying, storing, trading, selling, sending, and earning digital assets. As the first exchange to enable crypto purchases via credit card, CEX.IO has consistently led in innovation while maintaining a spotless 13-year record of security and regulatory compliance, having 40 global licenses and registrations.About OpenPaydOpenPayd is building the universal financial infrastructure for the digital economy. Founded in 2018 by Dr. Ozan Ozerk, its rails-agnostic platform enables businesses to move and manage money globally – across fiat and digital assets – through a single, powerful API. OpenPayd provides embedded accounts, FX, domestic and international payments, Open Banking, and stablecoin on/off ramps – delivering interoperability between traditional finance and digital assets. With one of the most comprehensive banking networks in the market, OpenPayd enables real-time money movement, everywhere. Trusted by global brands including eToro, Kraken, OKX, and B2C2, OpenPayd processes more than $180 billion in annual volumes for over 1000 businesses. It is the infrastructure layer powering the next generation of financial services. This article was written by FM Contributors at www.financemagnates.com.

ACCM, a contracts-for-difference (CFD) broker, has launched two local support hubs in Vietnam’s major cities, strengthening its footprint in one of its fastest-growing markets.These hubs will serve as operational centres to support local introducing brokers (IBs) and partners more effectively. The move comes as Vietnam continues to generate the highest traffic to ACCM’s website.Singapore Summit: Meet the largest APAC brokers you know (and those you still don't!)The expansion was marked by a series of grand opening events last week, attended by the broker’s regional partners.Trading Demand Is At Its PeakThe expansion came at a time when the broker was experiencing a massive increase in trading volume.FinanceMagnates.com earlier reported that January trading volume on the platform reached $285 billion, marking a record after an almost 33.5 per cent month-on-month increase and a 102.8 per cent year-on-year rise. The rally was supported by gold trading demand, which accounted for over 67 per cent of its total January volume, while silver trading made up 4.26 per cent.Although the broker did not reveal the March numbers, they are expected to be higher due to increased trading demand across the industry following market volatility induced by the Iran war.Expansion ContinuesACCM holds regulatory licences in Australia and South Africa, but most of its business is conducted under offshore licences in Seychelles and Vanuatu. The broker, meanwhile, is planning to expand in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and Europe within the next two years.Notably, several CFD brokers have established a presence in the UAE, particularly through an IB-style licence from the country's mainland regulator. Only a few big players have obtained the full brokerage licence there.ACCM, meanwhile, appears to be stepping up its marketing game with a sports sponsorship deal. Interestingly, while most brokers opt for football or Formula One sponsorships, it became the first to put its brand on the assets of a MotoGP team, the top two-wheeler racing event. This article was written by Arnab Shome at www.financemagnates.com.

Last week I attended GenAI Zürich, billed as Europe's summit on applied generative AI held over two days in early April. I participated in a roundtable on AI in banking, sat through a range of presentations of wildly varying quality, and walked the exhibition floor trying to remember where I had seen all of this before.It came to me on day two. The crypto conferences of the early 2020s. The same barely-contained frenzy. The same vendors who had clearly learned the terminology last Tuesday presenting themselves as seasoned practitioners. The same undercurrent of fear that if you don't move right now, in the next fifteen minutes, you will have permanently missed the boat. The Fear of Missing Out has found a new home, and it has exhibitor badges.The 95% Problem (That Nobody Wants to Solve)A curious ritual repeated itself across multiple presentations. Someone would open with a sobering statistic, a figure variously attributed to MIT, McKinsey, or "recent research," suggesting that somewhere north of 90% of AI pilot projects in enterprises fail to reach production. The audience would nod gravely. A moment of genuine reflection appeared possible.A handful of presenters did engage honestly with failure, which was genuinely refreshing and, frankly, far more useful than anything else on the agenda. But they were the exception. The majority pivoted immediately to three glowing case studies of projects that had worked brilliantly, with no further reference to the 95%, the reasons for it, or what might be done about it. It was the conference equivalent of opening a road safety seminar with the annual accident statistics and then spending the remaining forty minutes talking about Formula One.If the failure rate is genuinely that high, it is arguably the most interesting topic in the room. Why are pilots failing? Is it technology? Organisational resistance? Unclear success criteria? Governance gaps? These are solvable problems, if you are willing to look at them directly. Instead, the industry appears to have collectively agreed that the statistic exists to be cited and then tactfully ignored, like an awkward relative at a wedding.Buried underneath the failure rate is a more fundamental problem that almost nobody on the conference circuit appears willing to name. The dominant model for AI adoption is substitution: take an existing process, replace the human steps with agents, declare victory. What very few organisations are doing is stopping first to ask whether the process itself still makes sense.This matters because most business processes were not designed around what was optimal. They were designed around what was humanly possible. The number of steps, the handoffs, the approval layers, the batch runs that happen overnight because nobody could be expected to work around the clock, all of these reflect the constraints of human capacity, attention, and availability. We built our processes to fit our people. Now we are building our agents to fit our processes. It is the wrong way round.The more interesting question, and the one I heard asked precisely once across two days, is what you would design if you started from scratch knowing you had no meaningful limit on the number of agents you could deploy, no working hours to observe, and no cognitive load to manage. The answer looks almost nothing like what most organisations currently run. The opportunity is not to automate the existing workflow. It is to make the existing workflow unnecessary.Solutions in Search of a ProblemThe exhibition floor offered its own education. Several startups were demonstrating products that solved, with considerable ingenuity and evident technical talent, problems that I cannot honestly say anyone has. One company had built an AI-powered system for a workflow so niche I had to ask twice what industry it was aimed at. Another had gamely applied large language models to a process that worked perfectly well before they arrived, and now worked slightly differently, at greater expense, with an additional dependency on a third-party API.This is not unique to AI. Every technology wave produces its share of solutions looking for problems. In the early internet days, there were companies building browser plugins for tasks that didn't need a browser. In the mobile era, there were apps for things that didn't need an app. The pattern is as reliable as rain.The better presentations focused on unglamorous specifics. The AWS session stood out for its work on standardised specifications for software and system definitions: a practical attempt to create a common language between human intent and machine implementation that doesn't require the human to also be a developer. Our own Denis Voskvitsov presented on agent security and sandboxing, a topic that matters enormously red and gets discussed far less than agent capabilities. The rather important question of what you do when your AI agent can take actions in the world and you want some assurance that it won't take the wrong ones.The Banking Roundtable: Regulation, Reluctance, and Subject Access RequestsThe AI in Banking roundtable surfaced themes I suspect are common to most regulated industries, dressed up in slightly different clothes. The central question of adoption, specifically how you persuade staff who are perfectly capable at their jobs to change how they do those jobs, turns out to be less a technology problem than a change management one. People don't resist AI because they are ignorant of it. They resist it because they are not convinced it will make their working lives better, and in many cases they have seen enough technology implementations to have earned that scepticism.Regulation came up with the predictable mixture of genuine concern and performative anxiety. The EU AI Act is real, and for financial institutions that use AI in credit decisions, customer interactions, or risk classification, its requirements are not trivial. GDPR is also real, and data protection authorities have started asking pointed questions about what happens when a customer submits a subject access request asking for information about an AI model that was used to make a decision about them. This is not a hypothetical. It is happening. The answer "we used an AI" is not, it turns out, a complete or satisfying response from a regulatory standpoint.On the topic of AI in defence: there was, inevitably, a small political undercurrent about the ethics of AI being used in military applications. My own view is straightforward. If you do not want your technology used in defence, do not sign contracts with government departments that have the words "defence" or "war" in their name. This is not a complicated principle, though I appreciate it requires reading the contract.The Fourth RevolutionI have been doing this long enough to have lived through four of what I would call genuine technology revolutions. The PC in the 1980s. The internet in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Mobile in the 2010s. And now this.Each one democratised something. The PC put computing in the hands of individuals rather than institutions. The internet put information in the hands of anyone with a connection. Mobile put both in your pocket. This revolution is democratising capability itself. The ability to build things, to turn an idea into a working product, is no longer gated by whether you can write code, manage a development team, or afford one.The timeframe is compressing in ways that are genuinely difficult to internalise. A project that would have required weeks of engineering time two years ago can be prototyped in a day. We are not fully at the point where an idea becomes a product before lunch, but we are close enough that the economics of software development are being rewritten in real time. The scarce resource is no longer the ability to build. It is the quality of the idea, and the clarity with which you can articulate it.I feel for the junior developers who haven't yet grasped this transformation. Not because their skills are worthless, they aren't, but because the entry-level path of learning by writing boilerplate has just become considerably narrower. What is becoming more valuable is the ability to define a problem precisely, to reason about whether a solution actually solves it, and to know when the output in front of you is wrong. These are not coding skills. They are thinking skills.This feels like the biggest of the four revolutions, and I say that having watched the internet turn entire industries inside out. At EXANTE, we are not in the habit of running pilots that are designed to succeed on paper and fail in production. The questions we brought to Zürich, about adoption, governance, agent security, and regulatory exposure, are the same ones we are working through at home. The conference didn't answer them. But it was reassuring, in a slightly grim way, to confirm that everyone else is wrestling with exactly the same ones.. This article was written by FM Contributors at www.financemagnates.com.

Anjouan Corporate Services is expanding its international introducer network as global demand continues to rise for fast and efficient FX and crypto licensing in the Comoros jurisdiction of Anjouan. The company is actively seeking new introducers worldwide and already works with more than 600 introducers globally, all benefiting from strong, performance-based commission structures.Anjouan has become a fast-growing destination for financial services licensing, offering setup times of approximately 14 days, a 0% tax framework where applicable for qualifying international structures, and a streamlined regulatory process designed specifically for FX brokers, crypto exchanges, and fintech businesses. The jurisdiction’s emphasis on speed, efficiency, and accessibility has made it increasingly attractive to firms looking to enter the market quickly and operate internationally.Anjouan Corporate Services confirms that it is specifically looking to expand partnerships with corporate service providers, accountants, and law firms worldwide who have clients requiring licensing solutions in Anjouan. These professionals are ideally positioned to introduce businesses that need an efficient jurisdiction for FX or crypto operations, where the company can manage the full setup and licensing process quickly and effectively.The introducer model is a key part of the company’s global growth strategy. Introducers benefit from highly competitive commission structures, with strong earning potential for each successful client introduction and scalable long-term income opportunities. The process is straightforward: introducers refer clients, Anjouan Corporate Services handles the licensing and onboarding, and commissions are paid upon successful completion. With more than 600 active introducers already operating globally, Anjouan Corporate Services continues to build a strong international network of professional partners across multiple regions, supporting increasing global demand for alternative licensing jurisdictions outside traditional financial centres. David Lions for Anjouan Corporate Services said: “We are actively expanding our introducer network and working closely with corporate service providers, accountants, and law firms worldwide. These professionals are key to our growth, and we offer excellent commission structures alongside a fast and efficient licensing process that delivers real value to their clients.”Anjouan Corporate Services continues to position itself as a leading provider of FX and crypto licensing solutions, focusing on speed, efficiency, and global partnership growth through its expanding introducer network.About Anjouan Corporate ServicesAnjouan Corporate Services Ltd is a leading provider of financial licensing and corporate services, with over 25 years of experience supporting international clients. The company specializes in facilitating FX and cryptocurrency licenses and offers end-to-end support for firms seeking efficient and compliant market entry solutions.Website: https://anjouancorporateservices.com/ This article was written by FM Contributors at www.financemagnates.com.

Time is running out to take part in the Global Crypto Sentiment Survey among FX Brokers and Prop Trading Firms.Finance Magnates and Gold-i are inviting FX / CFD brokers, prop trading firms, and liquidity providers to share their view before the survey closes.The survey was launched to gather direct market input on how firms are approaching crypto trading today, how important it may become over the next two years, what barriers still stand in the way, and which products may see more growth next.Why this mattersCrypto remains a key topic across the trading industry, but the market is still not moving in one clear direction.Some firms already offer crypto trading and are seeing good client interest. Others are still reviewing demand, infrastructure, risk, regulation, and internal priorities before taking the next step.➡️ Take the survey and add your perspective to the findings.It gives brokers, prop firms, and liquidity providers the chance to add their own market view and help build a clearer industry picture based on real business input.What the survey coversThe survey looks at key areas including:current approach to crypto tradingstrategic importance over the next two yearsproduct expansion plansreasons for offering or considering cryptobarriers to growthinfrastructure confidencerevenue impactexpected A-Book share of crypto flowmarket outlook among retail FX brokersAll responses are anonymous and reviewed in aggregate for research purposes.A short survey with real valueThe survey takes only 3–5 minutes to complete, but every response helps strengthen the final findings.The more relevant firms that take part, the more useful and accurate the final market view becomes.For firms active in this space, this is a chance to make sure their side of the market is represented.Final call to take partIf you are part of an FX / CFD broker, prop trading firm, or liquidity provider, this is the final call to join the survey before it closes.➡️ Take the survey➡️ Share your view➡️ Help shape the final findingsAbout Gold-iFounded in 2008, Gold-i is a pioneering force in the trading technology sector, with its headquarters in the UK and offices worldwide. Having started as one of the earliest MT4 bridge providers, Gold-i has grown an extensive product portfolio and is a recognised market leader in both the FX and digital asset industries. Our client base includes brokers, funds, LPs and exchanges.At Gold-i, we are committed to driving innovation in trading technology, developing software solutions that empower clients to excel in today's dynamic market environment. Our products span three key areas: Liquidity Management, MetaTrader Tools & Hosting, and Business Intelligence & Risk Management. This article was written by Finance Magnates Staff at www.financemagnates.com.

New Zealand's Financial Markets Authority (FMA) said today (Wednesday) it has joined 16 counterparts in a second annual Global Week of Action against unlawful finfluencers, a coordinated push that now spans five continents and sweeps in major retail trading hubs including Singapore, Hong Kong, the United Arab Emirates and Australia. The FMA stated it contacted 14 finfluencers active across social media platforms as part of the operation, which started on April 20 and runs through this week.Singapore Summit: Meet the largest APAC brokers you know (and those you still don't!)The Kiwi regulator said those contacts have already produced results, with misleading or harmful content taken down, including advertisements aimed at New Zealanders. Some operators have trimmed the scope of their offerings, and others have stopped serving New Zealand customers altogether, the agency said.Global Coalition Doubles in Size After 2025 DebutSamantha McGuire, manager of regulatory services at the FMA, said the international coordination reflects how quickly social media has become a primary channel for retail financial information. "As financial promotions become more prevalent on social media, international collaboration is crucial in our ongoing efforts to strengthen consumer protection, safeguard individuals from misleading financial promotions and support a fair online environment," McGuire said.The FMA said most finfluencers operate within the law and can help broaden access to investing, but acknowledged it has seen a rise in cases where operators stray outside regulatory boundaries or mislead followers.The 2026 edition marks a sharp expansion from last year's inaugural operation, which brought together nine regulators led by the UK's Financial Conduct Authority. The current line-up includes ASIC in Australia, Belgium's FSMA, Brazil's CVM, three Canadian agencies, the Danish FSA, Hong Kong's SFC, India's SEBI, the Central Bank of Ireland, Norway's Finanstilsynet, two Qatari regulators, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the UAE Capital Market Authority and the FCA.Copy Trading and Luxury Lifestyle Content Flagged as Priority RisksCopy trading has become a specific area of concern, the FMA said, with finfluencers pushing followers to mirror trades as a supposedly easy path to profit. The agency said those offerings often involve complex, high-risk products, and promotions are frequently dressed up with images of luxury cars, designer goods and other signals of wealth that downplay the actual risks.That pattern echoes findings from regulators across the coalition. The FCA this year criminally charged three finfluencers, Charles Hunter, Kayan Kalipha and Luke Desmaris, over the promotion of unauthorized contracts for difference, with the agency citing the use of "lavish lifestyles, often falsely, to promote success."ASIC last year issued 18 warning notices to Australian finfluencers suspected of pushing CFDs and over-the-counter derivatives without a license.Enforcement Track Record Is Uneven Across JurisdictionsHow far regulators are willing to go varies widely. The FCA has published more than 50 warning alerts, triggered over 650 content takedown requests and referenced one case in which around 90,000 retail investors lost roughly £75 million through a firm promoted by online personalities. Hong Kong's SFC secured the city's first custodial sentence against a finfluencer last November, when Chau Pak Yin was handed a six-week prison term for running a paid Telegram group offering unlicensed investment advice.The UAE's Securities and Commodities Authority has taken a different approach, becoming the first regulator globally to require a license for individuals producing financial content online. The UK, by contrast, has not signaled any move toward licensing, relying instead on enforcement under existing financial promotion rules.New Zealand's FMA sits closer to the enforcement-led model, without a standalone licensing regime for online content creators. The regulator is already moving to tighten its retail derivatives framework more broadly, having proposed leverage caps of up to 30:1 on CFDs offered to retail clients, and it previously cancelled the derivatives issuer license of Rockfort Markets after an extended compliance dispute.Demand for Online Financial Content Keeps GrowingThe regulatory push is running into a powerful tailwind. A BaFin survey of 1,000 recent investors found that more than half of respondents from Gen Y and Gen Z view social media as a viable alternative to traditional financial advice, and 57% of those following finfluencers had bought products directly through links the creators shared.A separate CMC Markets study cited by the FCA found that 33% of retail traders are more likely to act on a trade when a followed influencer flags an opportunity.For New Zealand, the FMA said it is running a week of educational social media posts for consumers and finfluencers, has released a podcast on the sector's risks, and has refreshed its guidance pages for both audiences. This article was written by Damian Chmiel at www.financemagnates.com.

The dominance of Trading 212 in the United Kingdom’s retail trading market is growing fast, as the broker ended 2025 with a 72 per cent revenue increase to £277.6 million. Its pre-tax profit also increased to £123.1 million from the previous year’s £52.9 million, while netting £92.2 million.Singapore Summit: Meet the largest APAC brokers you know (and those you still don't!)Who Is the Big Revenue Generator?Trading 212 offers both contracts for differences (CFDs) and stock trading. While its CFD income comes from market making, spreads, and overnight financing, the company earns only from forex conversion and, partly, from interest on invested cash under its zero-commission stock trading model.Out of the total revenue, almost £257 million came from trading, while the remaining £20.6 million was generated from client interest income. It also earned £1.68 million from its debit cards.It, however, did not specify how much of the total revenue came from the legacy CFDs business and how much from its newly focused stock trading offerings.[#highlighted-links#] The latest UK revenue rise for Trading 212 came after the figure jumped 55 per cent in the previous year.The company highlighted that this growth “continues to demonstrate the increasing popularity of technology-based trading and wealth-building apps that allow the "new" generation to manage their financial portfolios using tech that is both familiar to them, whilst removing significant costs of both entry and ongoing transaction-based costs.”Read more: Trading212 Cyprus Doubles Its 2024 Revenue to £42 MillionAnother Good Year for Trading 212Other than the revenue and profit, the platform’s non-financial KPIs also received a massive boost.The number of funded accounts on the platform jumped by 69 per cent last year, the average number of monthly active users increased by 84 per cent, and the total value of client money and assets combined jumped by 140 per cent.Meanwhile, the company's costs also increased with the revenue. Its administrative expenses went up by 44 per cent to £163 million, while it spent almost £51.5 million on advertising and marketing, up from £39.5 million.Its staff costs almost doubled to £15.8 million. It also appears to have gone on a hiring spree, with 122 employees by the end of 2025, up from 53 a year ago. This article was written by Arnab Shome at www.financemagnates.com.

Interactive Brokers reported higher revenue and earnings for the first quarter of 2026, supported by increased trading activity and growth in client accounts and balances. The company also announced a dividend increase following the results.Singapore Summit: Meet the largest APAC brokers you know (and those you still don't!)Earnings and Revenue IncreaseAccording to Tuesday announcement, the broker posted diluted earnings per share of $0.59, compared to $0.48 in the same period last year. Adjusted earnings per share stood at $0.60 as net revenue reached $1.67 billion, up from $1.43 billion a year earlier, while adjusted revenue came in at $1.68 billion.Income before income taxes rose to $1.29 billion from $1.06 billion in the prior-year quarter, while the pretax profit margin improved to 77%, compared to 74% a year earlier.At the same time, Interactive Broker's commission revenue increased 19% to $613 million, driven by higher customer trading volumes. Stock trading volume also rose 25%, while futures and options volumes increased 20% and 16%, respectively.Read more: After StoneX, Interactive Brokers Taps Coinbase for Nano Bitcoin and Ether FuturesNet interest income also grew significantly, rising 17% to $904 million. The increase reflected higher average customer margin loans and larger customer credit balances. Revenue from other fees and services rose 10% to $86 million, supported by gains in order flow payments, FDIC sweep fees, and market data fees.Additionally, execution, clearing, and distribution fees declined 12% to $106 million. The decrease followed a reduction in regulatory fees and higher exchange rebates linked to increased trading activity.Client Growth and Balance Sheet ExpansionInteractive Brokers reported continued growth in its client base and assets. Customer accounts increased 31% to 4.75 million as customer equity rose 38% to $789.4 billion.Daily average revenue trades grew 24% to 4.37 million, reflecting higher activity across the platform. Customer credit balances increased 35% to $168.8 billion, while margin loans also rose 35% to $86.0 billion.The company reported total equity of $21.3 billion at the end of the quarter. Following the results, the board approved a higher quarterly dividend of $0.0875 per share, up from $0.08. Early this year, Interactive Brokers rolled out new “nano” Bitcoin and Ether futures from Coinbase Derivatives, giving eligible clients cheaper, smaller-sized ways to trade crypto. The products include tiny contracts with monthly expiries and perpetual-style futures that closely track spot prices and can run indefinitely. Because the contract sizes are much smaller than standard futures, traders can gain long-term or flexible exposure to Bitcoin and Ether without committing large amounts of capital, and they can do so around the clock with 24/7 trading. This article was written by Jared Kirui at www.financemagnates.com.

On April 18–19, an attacker drained 116,500 rsETH from Kelp DAO’s LayerZero-based bridge, roughly 18% of the token’s supply and about $292–293 million at the time. The bridge held reserves backing rsETH on more than 20 networks, so the exploit instantly created doubts about whether wrapped rsETH on those chains still had real backing behind it.Singapore Summit: Meet the largest APAC brokers you know (and those you still don't!)According to DeFiLlama data, the Kelp DAO exploit landed in a market that was already near the psychological $100 billion milestone for total value locked, and it erased almost $14 billion from that figure within a day. Between April 18 and 19, DeFi’s aggregate TVL fell from about $99.5 billion to roughly $85.21 billion.Hack Shakes DeFi, Wipes $14B TVLThe technical root cause looks simple on paper: Kelp ran a 1‑of‑1 verifier configuration for LayerZero’s Decentralized Verifier Network. Only one verifier needed to sign off on cross‑chain messages, so once the attacker controlled that view of the world, they effectively controlled the bridge.The Arbitrum Security Council has taken emergency action to freeze the 30,766 ETH being held in the address on Arbitrum One that is connected to the KelpDAO exploit. The Security Council acted with input from law enforcement as to the exploiter’s identity, and, at all times,…— Arbitrum (@arbitrum) April 21, 2026According to several post‑mortems, the attacker compromised two RPC nodes that fed data to the verifier and then used a DDoS attack to knock clean nodes offline, forcing a failover to their poisoned infrastructure. From there, they injected a forged cross‑chain message that tricked the system into releasing 116,500 rsETH to their address, all without breaking a single line of on‑chain code.Read more: If DeFi Had This in 2022, Maybe It Wouldn’t Have CollapsedFrom an analytical standpoint, this hack sits in the same family as earlier bridge failures such as Ronin and Nomad, where central checkpoints and initialization assumptions became high‑value targets. The common pattern is not a single vulnerable contract but an architecture that treats critical verification as a convenience feature rather than a hardened security boundary.Lending Models Under PressureThe story did not end at the bridge. The attacker rapidly moved the stolen rsETH into Aave as collateral and borrowed large amounts of ETH against it, while opening positions on other lending markets. Investors reacted quickly. On‑chain data and market reports show that more than $5.4 billion exited Aave in short order as users reduced risk, with total value locked dropping even more sharply over 48 hours.Earlier today we identified suspicious cross-chain activity involving rsETH. We have paused rsETH contracts across mainnet and several L2s while we investigate.We are working with @LayerZero_Core, @unichain, our auditors and top security experts on RCA. We will keep you…— Kelp (@KelpDAO) April 18, 2026ETH utilization on Aave briefly spiked to 100%, and AAVE’s token price fell around 10% as traders priced in both the immediate hole and future governance decisions around recapitalization. From a market‑structure perspective, this looks less like a one‑off exploit and more like a stress test of the non‑isolated lending model where one asset’s failure can ripple across an entire pool.He pointed to Aave v4’s planned “hub‑and‑spoke” architecture—closer to semi‑isolated markets—as a potential compromise between composability and safety. The underlying analytical point is that lending protocols may no longer afford to assume that all whitelisted collateral assets share roughly the same risk profile, especially when some sit on complex, cross‑chain restaking rails.A Security Reckoning in an AI AgeThe Kelp DAO exploit lands in a month where crypto platforms have already lost hundreds of millions of dollars to hacks, piling onto a multi‑year trend of bridge‑centric incidents. Whether or not AI played a direct role in this particular hack, the pattern of rapid, multi‑venue attacks suggests defenders can no longer rely on slow human review and ad‑hoc configuration choices to keep up. For DeFi builders, the practical takeaway is less about any single tool and more about assuming that motivated attackers can see the system almost as clearly as its designers.UPDATE: ? The Kelp DAO exploiter has moved about $175 million in ETH to fresh wallets after Arbitrum froze $71 million tied to the hack. https://t.co/xj2Srjob0I pic.twitter.com/GjlFXnE6cH— CoinMarketCap (@CoinMarketCap) April 21, 2026The public blame game between Kelp DAO and LayerZero underscores another uncomfortable reality: responsibility for security in composable finance is shared, but accountability often fragments once something breaks. Kelp says it followed LayerZero’s defaults and common practice; LayerZero says it warned against single‑verifier setups and now promises to stop signing messages for such configurations. For users and institutional participants, this dispute matters less than the broader lesson: default settings on critical infrastructure are de facto risk decisions, not neutral technical details. This article was written by Jared Kirui at www.financemagnates.com.

Silver traded at $76.55 per ounce on Tuesday, April 21, 2026, down 3.8% in the steepest single-day drop in a month, as markets weighed the approaching US-Iran ceasefire expiry and Federal Reserve Chair nominee Kevin Warsh's Senate confirmation hearing. The white metal now sits 37% below the $121.64 all-time high set on January 29, and roughly 15% below pre-Iran war levels. The Dollar Index has climbed to 98.47 while Brent crude holds near $95, a dual headwind for non-yielding bullion.This week's catalysts are stacked. Wednesday marks the ceasefire deadline, with the second round of US-Iran negotiations still unconfirmed, and Warsh is testifying on Capitol Hill under pressure from Sen. Thom Tillis to block the vote over the DOJ's Powell probe.Follow me on X for real-time silver market analysis: @ChmielDkWhy Silver Price Is Going Down? Iran Ceasefire, Warsh Hearing, and a Stronger DollarThe Tuesday selloff is driven by three overlapping forces: a firmer dollar, rising inflation expectations from elevated oil, and uncertainty over whether Warsh's Fed inherits a more hawkish stance than markets priced in. Bas Kooijman, CEO and Asset Manager at DHF Capital S.A., framed the setup in his Tuesday note."With the current ceasefire nearing expiration, uncertainty around a potential extension is keeping investors cautious," said Bas Kooijman, CEO and Asset Manager at DHF Capital S.A. Kooijman added that any dovish signal from Warsh's testimony could compress Treasury yields and provide a supportive backdrop for silver.The Iran ceasefire expires Wednesday with no confirmation either side will extend it. President Trump said Tuesday he "expects to be bombing" Iran if talks collapse, while the Strait of Hormuz remains largely shut. Since the Iran war began, silver has plunged over 15%, as geopolitical risks clash with resilient US consumer activity and the Fed's 3.50-3.75% hold. Retail sales jumped 1.7% in March, the strongest monthly gain in a year.As I wrote in my March crash analysis, the hawkish Fed hold in March, which revised 2026 dot-plot projections down to just one cut, hit silver harder than gold. That amplification dynamic is repeating today.The four forces driving Tuesday's silver selloff:Dollar Index at 98.47, directly pressuring silver priced in dollarsBrent crude near $95 lifting inflation expectations and Treasury yieldsIran ceasefire expiring Wednesday with no extension confirmed by either sideWarsh Senate hearing creating policy uncertainty ahead of the May 15 Powell transitionThe Physical Market Paradox: Sixth Straight Silver Deficit Meets Paper SellingThe paper market is selling while the physical market keeps tightening. That divergence has defined silver for most of 2026 and has not reversed on this pullback.Key physical data points going into the Tuesday selloff:2026 silver market deficit projected at 46.3M oz, up 15% from 40.3M oz in 2025, per the Silver Institute and Metals Focus April 15 reportStock drawdown reached 762M oz from global above-ground inventories since 2021 to cover the cumulative deficitCoin and bar demand forecast to rise 18% in 2026, supported by a recovery in US retail buyingIndustrial fabrication forecast to drop 3% to a four-year low, with the Iran war cited as a downside risk to global growthAs I wrote in my April COMEX analysis, registered silver inventory has fallen to 76M oz, just 13.4% coverage of open interest. That gap between paper pricing and physical availability is the core structural argument behind Bank of America's $135-$309 target range for 2026.Silver Technical Analysis: $80 Caps, $70 Supports, Fibonacci Warns of $20Very little has changed on my daily chart despite the 3.8% move. Silver remains pinned inside the broad consolidation range it has held since the January 30 flash crash. The 50-day exponential moving average sits near $80 and is actively capping every rally attempt. Below spot, the $70 round-number support has held three times this year and is reinforced by the 200-day EMA at $65.My directional bias is neutral with a bearish tilt, contingent on whether $70 holds on a fourth test. Below $70, the next meaningful floor on my chart is $54.50, the October 2025 breakout zone. Above spot, silver would need to reclaim $80 on a daily close before $90-$94 (the February highs) comes back into play, and only an $80 monthly close would reopen the path toward the $120 all-time high.The Fibonacci extension I run across the 2024-2026 uptrend projects a 1.618 downside target near $20 per ounce, representing a 70% decline from current levels. That figure looks dramatic against a $120 recent high. Worth remembering that silver traded in the $20-$30 range for most of 2022-2024, and spent years below that level before the pandemic. Reversion to that zone would be a regime change, not a black-swan event.Key silver price levels (XAG/USD spot, April 21, 2026):How Low Can Silver Go? Silver Price Prediction 2026 From $20 Bear Case to $309 BullForecasts for silver in 2026 span a range so wide it verges on non-informative, which is itself a signal about how broken the pricing mechanism has become. On the bull side, Bank of America's Michael Widmer holds a $135-$309 target based on gold-to-silver ratio compression. Citigroup projects $150-$170 within three months if the ratio returns to its 2011 low of 32:1. Macro strategist David Hunter targets $180 by Q2, and Robert Kiyosaki calls for $200 under his fiat debasement thesis.On the base-case side, the Reuters poll of 30 analysts sets the 2026 median at $79.50, just above current spot. JPMorgan holds the most conservative major-bank call at $81 average. As the FinanceMagnates.com Citi target report from January detailed, Citigroup described silver as a higher-beta version of gold when it tested $120 before the January 30 crash erased 36% in a single session.Kooijman maintains a constructive medium-term view despite the pullback. He argues that silver could see increased demand while supply shrinks this year, with the sixth consecutive annual deficit providing a structural floor under any further downside. That dynamic mirrors the amplification pattern the FinanceMagnates.com report on the March Iran-driven gold and silver selloff detailed, where physical tightness eventually absorbed the paper selling.Silver price prediction table (2026):As my April 20 gold analysis established, even gold carries a 28% downside risk to $3,400 in a reflation scenario. Silver's higher beta means it will move further in both directions.Silver Price Prediction FAQWhy is silver falling today, April 21, 2026?Silver fell 3.8% to $76.55 per ounce on Tuesday, pressured by a Dollar Index above 98 and Brent crude near $95 lifting Treasury yields. Markets are weighing Wednesday's US-Iran ceasefire expiry and Kevin Warsh's Senate confirmation hearing, where any hawkish signal would further raise the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding silver. Since the Iran war began, silver is down over 15%.How low can silver go in 2026?My chart identifies four progressive downside zones: $70 (tested three times), $65 (200-day EMA), $54.50 (October 2025 breakout), and a 1.618 Fibonacci extension at $20. A genuine Fed hold combined with reflation would target the $54.50-$65 zone. The $20 extension is an extreme scenario but represents silver's normal trading range from 2022 to 2024.What is the silver price prediction for 2026?Institutional targets span from JPMorgan's $81 average to Bank of America's $309 bull case. The Reuters poll of 30 analysts sets the 2026 median at $79.50. Citigroup holds a $150-$170 short-term target, David Hunter targets $180 by Q2, and Robert Kiyosaki forecasts $200. My chart sees $54.50 as the bear case if $70 fails on a weekly close.Will silver recover after the Iran ceasefire?The answer depends on the outcome. An extension or framework agreement would compress Brent crude, weaken the dollar, and reopen the path toward $80 and $90-$94. A collapse into renewed conflict would initially spike silver on safe-haven flows, but as my March 3 analysis documented, silver retraces those spikes within 48-72 hours as industrial-demand concerns reassert.Is silver still in a bull market?Yes, structurally. Silver is up roughly 135% year-on-year and the supply deficit is widening for a sixth straight year. My chart shows silver inside a consolidation range, not a confirmed downtrend. A weekly close below $70 would be the first serious warning. A close below $54.50 would end the structural bull case entirely. This article was written by Damian Chmiel at www.financemagnates.com.

E8 Markets, a prop trading firm that now describes itself as a "SaaS educational simulation platform for financial markets," issued a warning today (Tuesday) to retail traders about the risks of depositing money with FX, futures, and crypto brokers. The company tied the campaign to US National Financial Literacy Month and used it to launch a loyalty program named after one of its top-earning users, Tom Gibbs.While statistics showing that the vast majority of traders lose money on FX and CFDs are well known, E8 Markets did not disclose how many traders incur losses in prop firms offering trading on simulated rather than real markets. Here, too, the figures do not appear optimistic, according to industry data.Singapore Summit: Meet the largest APAC brokers you know (and those you still don't!)Warning Leans on ESMA and CFTC Loss FiguresThe company pointed to a December 2024 Commodity Futures Trading Commission advisory stating that most individual traders lose money in futures and foreign currency after fees and taxes, along with CFTC figures suggesting two out of three retail forex traders lose money each quarter. E8 also cited the European Securities and Markets Authority's disclosure framework showing that 74% to 89% of retail CFD accounts lose money, with average losses ranging from €1,600 to €29,000 per client."No one should have to lose $5,000 on a broker with little or no guidance or assurance of future success," E8 Markets Chief Executive Officer Dylan Elchami said in the announcement.Elchami argued that users can start on the firm's platform with as little as $36 in enrollment fees and access $5,000 in simulated capital, earning what the company describes as "performance-based payouts" without committing their own money to live markets.The release characterizes brokers as profiting from customer losses through spreads, commissions, order routing, and pricing mechanics, presenting the deposit model as a series of small, compounding costs that erode trader capital.Prop Firm Payout Rates Sit Below the Numbers E8 HighlightsThe loss rates E8 uses to warn retail traders against brokers sit within the same band as retail CFD outcomes reported in regulated markets. FinanceMagnates.com industry data, however, suggests payout rates inside the prop trading sector itself run materially below those CFD benchmarks.A proprietary dataset from technology provider FPFX Tech, covering more than 300,000 prop trading accounts from 10 firms, found that only 7% of participants ever received a payout, with the average withdrawal at about 4% of the funded account size. Statistics shared last year by The Funded Trader founder Angelo Ciaramello pointed even lower, with challenge pass rates of 5% to 10% and only around a fifth of funded accounts converting into actual payouts. A separate ATFunded disclosure placed funded status at roughly 6% of traders.A survey of approximately 500 active clients of prop firm PipFarm put average participant spend at $4,270 on challenges, with close to 60% of respondents losing capital. A wider Swiset study of nearly 10,000 traders placed the global prop trading failure rate at around 80%.In practical terms, a retail participant choosing between a CFD account carrying an ESMA-mandated risk warning and a prop challenge marketed as a lower-risk path is comparing a regulated disclosure of losing accounts with an unregulated sector whose own data show fewer paid participants.On one hand, there are regulated CFD brokers. On the other, prop trading firms registered in exotic jurisdictions such as Saint Lucia. Regulation in this case is largely nominal, but it is sufficient for MetaQuotes to grant these companies licenses to use MetaTrader. E8 Markets is also registered there.The "Simulated" Pivot Predates This CampaignE8's positioning as an "educational simulation platform" is part of a broader industry shift in language that took shape after US authorities began scrutinizing the sector. In August 2023, the CFTC sued Traders Global Group, the operator of My Forex Funds, alleging fraud tied to a business that had generated roughly $310 million in fees.A US court later threw out the regulator's case after flagging procedural failures, but the original complaint triggered a visible rewrite of product copy across the prop sector.FTMO, one of the largest operators, states on its website that it "simulates real market conditions" using "demo trading accounts with virtual funds." Surgetrader rebranded its challenge as an "audition." Across the industry, the terms "simulated" and "virtual" have effectively become the sector's safe words. E8's language goes further, describing a "SimFi Ecosystem" and stating explicitly in its disclosures that "E8 is not a broker and does not accept margin or deposits," while enrollment fees "do not purchase live capital, a brokerage account, a commodity interest, a security, or any investment opportunity."The category distinction is the commercial point. It keeps most prop operators outside the licensing regimes that apply to CFD brokers, including the ESMA rules E8 cites in its release. Between 80 and 100 prop firms shut down in 2024, according to FM Intelligence estimates, with MetaQuotes' decision to restrict platform access accelerating consolidation. Against that backdrop, payout tracker Prop Firm Match recorded around $325 million in total payouts across tracked firms in 2025, with E8 accounting for about $19 million of that total. The release does not reconcile that tracker figure with the $70 million cumulative payout number the firm attributes to the platform since launch.Regulators Are Watching the FramingNational regulators have been increasingly vocal. Italy's Consob described retail prop trading as online simulations that function more like "video games" than investment services. Authorities in Belgium, Spain, and Germany have raised similar concerns, ESMA has convened discussions on the model, and Australia's ASIC has warned financial influencers promoting prop offerings without risk disclosure. The CFTC is separately weighing whether prop firms that offer exchange-traded derivatives should register as Commodity Trading Advisors, regardless of whether the underlying challenge is simulated.At least one US operator, MyFunded Futures, is moving in the opposite direction, preparing to operate as a CFTC-regulated Introducing Broker under the National Futures Association. When a firm has to iterate its category label from "prop firm" to "funded trader platform" to "SaaS educational simulation platform" to stay outside the rules applied to brokers, a fair question is whether the underlying business sits comfortably inside any category at all, or whether the naming exercise is what keeps it in the regulatory gray zone where national supervisors have started to push.E8 does not publish a challenge pass rate or payout-conversion figure alongside the campaign. Under the firm's disclosures, the Gibbs case is presented as a single participant outcome that "does not, standing alone, describe or predict what other participants may achieve."However, the prop firm’s website states that the pass rate over a period of more than a year between 2023 and 2024 was just under 18% for those who traded at least once during that time and obtained an E8 Trader Account.The release also flags that simulated performance has "inherent limitations and does not represent actual trading." This article was written by Damian Chmiel at www.financemagnates.com.

A handful of familiar tickers now shape how equity investors gain exposure to Bitcoin, with fresh data from BitcoinTreasuries.net showing Strategy at the top of the public-company rankings and other well-known crypto names clustering inside the top 10.As a result, instead of investors spreading exposure across multiple crypto-linked stocks, Strategy is starting to function like a dominant, leveraged proxy for Bitcoin on its own, effectively turning what was once a multi-stock trade into one centered on a single ticker.Singapore Summit: Meet the largest APAC brokers you know (and those you still don't!).While dozens of listed firms hold some BTC, trading flows and market attention increasingly focus on a small group of recognizable brands that combine liquidity, name recognition, and large on-balance-sheet positions.BitcoinTreasuries data show Strategy in first place with 815,061 BTC, far ahead of the rest of the public cohort. Below Strategy, the top 10 list features several brands that are already central to the crypto story for different reasons. Twenty One Capital and Japan’s Metaplanet appear as pure Bitcoin treasury names, with 43,514 BTC and 40,177 BTC respectively, positioning themselves as specialized balance‑sheet vehicles for the asset.MARA Holdings and Riot Platforms, both large miners, continue to convert a growing share of production into long-term reserves rather than selling output immediately, using BTC balances as a form of self-hedging.Strategy Doubles Down on BitcoinCoinbase stands out in this group because it combines a prominent role as a trading venue with a meaningful corporate BTC position. Its 15,000‑plus coins place it inside the upper tier of public holders, but its earnings still depend more on trading and custody fees than mark‑to‑market gains on Bitcoin. That mix makes Coinbase’s stock less of a pure BTC tracker and more of a broader bet on crypto market activity.You may also like: Bitcoin Surges, Oil Slides as Trump Says Iran Has Announced Strait of Hormuz ReopeningThis week, Strategy has taken another big step in its Bitcoin strategy, adding 34,164 BTC in a single week and lifting its total holdings to 815,061 BTC. The company spent about 2.54 billion dollars on the new coins at an average price of 74,395 dollars per bitcoin, pushing its multiyear accumulation program to a new scale.At press time, Bitcoin was changing hands around $75,700, leaving its market capitalization just above 1.5 trillion dollars and extending a period of relatively muted, range‑bound trading.The latest buying round confirms that MicroStrategy continues to treat Bitcoin as its primary treasury asset. The company has now spent roughly 61.56 billion dollars on BTC at an average cost of 75,527 dollars per coin. It started building this position in 2020 and has turned the strategy into a central part of how it presents itself to investors.Strategy Funds Fresh Bitcoin BuysMicroStrategy did not rely on existing cash to finance the new purchases. Instead, it raised capital in the market and converted it into Bitcoin. According to the recent filing, the company generated about 2.2 billion dollars from issuing perpetual preferred shares under the STRC ticker. It raised an additional 366 million dollars from common stock sales.Strategy Adds $2.54B in BTC, Holdings Exceed 815K CoinsStrategy announced it has acquired 34,164 BTC for approximately $2.54 billion at an average price of $74,395 per bitcoin, bringing its total holdings to 815,061 BTC. The total acquisition cost reaching about $61.56 billion… pic.twitter.com/ztArphu1Bs— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) April 20, 2026This approach increases MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin exposure but dilutes existing shareholders, who now own a company more closely tied to the price of a single asset. The strategy also makes the stock behave like a leveraged way to gain Bitcoin exposure. When bitcoin rises, the scale of the holdings can amplify gains. When bitcoin falls, the same leverage works in reverse.Market reaction to the latest announcement was cautious. MicroStrategy shares traded more than 2.5 percent lower in pre‑market dealing after the disclosure. Investors continue to weigh the potential upside of such a large Bitcoin position against the risks of heavy dependence on a volatile asset. This article was written by Jared Kirui at www.financemagnates.com.

The way retail traders discover brokers and proprietary trading firms is starting to shift, as a growing number of platforms attempt to impose structure on a fragmented and often opaque market.Singapore Summit: Meet the largest APAC brokers you know (and those you still don't!).For years, discovery has been dominated by affiliate-driven review sites, forums, and user-generated ratings, where commercial incentives and inconsistent standards can make comparisons difficult. As the number of brokers and prop trading firms expands—and as prop firm models face increasing scrutiny—new tools are emerging that aim to standardize how traders evaluate options.Two such efforts moved forward. FXStreet, in partnership with Swiset, launched Propinder, a tool focused on prop trading challenges, while investingLive expanded its broker comparison directory. Notably, investingLive and Finance Magnates are both part of Ultimate Group.Two Approaches to the Same ProbleminvestingLive’s directory is built around structured, side-by-side comparison. It lists brokers in a standardized format, including regulatory licenses such as CySEC, FCA, and FSCA, along with platforms like MT4, MT5, and cTrader, asset classes, minimum deposits, and support details. Users can filter results by criteria such as regulation or platform.The directory currently includes 35 brokers, reflecting a curated rather than exhaustive approach.Propinder, by contrast, takes a guided route. The tool asks users to complete a short survey covering experience, platform preferences, risk tolerance, and location. It then generates three prop trading challenge suggestions, based on aggregated data from similar user profiles. Each result highlights rules such as profit targets, drawdown limits, and time constraints.Both platforms are positioning themselves as clarity tools in segments where offerings can appear similar at a glance but differ significantly in underlying terms.Neutrality Claims Under ScrutinyBoth companies emphasize that commercial relationships do not influence how providers are presented.Neophytos Papageorgiou, CEO of investingLive and Finance Magnates, said inclusion and evaluation are kept separate, arguing that rankings and filters are not affected by partnerships. At Propinder, CEO Javier Hertfelder framed the product as an educational tool, saying its goal is to ensure traders understand conditions “before it costs them anything.”Those claims reflect a long-standing tension in the comparison space. Platforms that aggregate brokers or prop firms typically rely on some form of monetization—whether through cost-per-acquisition (CPA), cost-per-lead (CPL), or listing arrangements—raising questions about how inclusion is determined and how visibility is priced.A Crowded Comparison Market Tools like these are entering an already competitive landscape. In the broker segment, platforms such as BrokerChooser, Finder, Investopedia, and Forex Peace Army have long offered reviews and rankings. In the prop trading space, sites like PropFirmMatch, Prop Firm Compare, and PropFirms.com provide side-by-side evaluations of funding programs, while some firms publish their own comparison content.What distinguishes the new entrants is their attempt to standardize inputs more tightly—either through fixed data fields, as in investingLive’s directory, or through profile-based matching, as in Propinder. Whether that results in more reliable comparisons, or simply repackages existing affiliate models in a more structured interface, remains to be seen.Prop firm challenges look identical until you read the rules. ?Propinder surfaces conditions, profit targets and payout structures upfront. Find my challenges ? https://t.co/M5xY5OGUPt#propfirm #forextrading pic.twitter.com/U3nW3gRitm— FXStreet News (@FXStreetNews) April 17, 2026What It Means for Brokers and Prop FirmsFor brokers and prop trading firms, the emergence of more structured discovery tools could have commercial implications.Visibility in these environments may increasingly shape how firms are evaluated by retail traders, raising questions about how listings are managed, what data is surfaced, and whether paid placement becomes a factor. Firms may also need to monitor how their conditions—spreads, rules, or funding terms—are represented in standardized formats.More broadly, the shift suggests that the retail discovery layer itself is being rebuilt. The key question is whether these new tools can balance usability with transparency, or whether they will inherit the same trust issues that have long defined the comparison space. This article was written by Tareq Sikder at www.financemagnates.com.

Coinbase has launched its crypto-backed lending product for UK customers with the underlying infrastructure provided by the DeFi lending protocol Morpho.Singapore Summit: Meet the largest APAC brokers you know (and those you still don't!)UK users can now borrow USDC against Bitcoin and Ethereum holdings directly through Coinbase's interface — but the loan itself is processed on-chain, not on Coinbase's balance sheet. The mechanics are straightforward. When a user opens a position, their collateral moves into a Morpho smart contract on the Base network. The USDC is then disbursed from the Morpho protocol to the user's Coinbase account. Coinbase is the front-end; Morpho is the book. Rather than running a proprietary lending operation — which requires capital allocation, credit risk management, and a balance sheet willing to absorb losses — Coinbase plugs into an existing on-chain liquidity pool. The result is a product that can scale without the overhead of a traditional lender, and that operates 24/7 with no fixed repayment schedule and algorithmically set rates based on real-time supply and demand. $2.17 Billion in the U.S. Since January 2025 The UK launch is the first international rollout of a product that has been live in the United States since January 2025. U.S. loan originations through the Coinbase-Morpho integration have crossed $2.17 billion. That figure establishes the product as more than a pilot — it is now a meaningful revenue line being carried into new markets. The expansion model is notable for its simplicity. Coinbase does not need to rebuild a lending operation from scratch in each new jurisdiction. It connects its regulated, local-facing product to the same permissionless DeFi infrastructure. Market entry becomes a compliance and distribution problem, not an infrastructure one. What This Means for Brokers Offering Credit For firms that provide margin lending or leveraged products to retail clients, the comparison is uncomfortable. Coinbase is offering instant disbursement, no repayment schedule, and rates set by the market rather than a credit committee. Traditional brokers carry balance sheet risk, operate within fixed settlement windows, and price credit based on internal models that rarely update in real time. This is part of a broader push by Coinbase to build a full consumer finance stack in the UK — following its FCA registration and the recent launches of savings products and DEX trading access. The lending product is the credit layer of that stack. The structural point is worth stating plainly: a regulated exchange is now using open-source financial infrastructure to offer credit products that most traditional lenders cannot replicate on comparable terms. That gap will not close quickly. This article was written by Tanya Chepkova at www.financemagnates.com.

Russia's regulated forex market posted a record quarterly trading volume of $68.6 billion in Q1 2026. The number tells a story of growth. The data behind it tells a different one.Singapore Summit: Meet the largest APAC brokers you know (and those you still don't!) The latest statistical report from the market's self-regulatory organization reveals a sector that is less a competitive market than a structured monopoly with a long tail of inactive accounts. One Firm, 90% of Volume Of the total quarterly volume, 90.6% came from clients of a single firm: Alfa-Forex. There are three licensed forex dealers in Russia. Two of them, combined, account for less than 10% of turnover. Whatever the headline figure implies about market health, the competitive structure doesn't support it. Total registered client accounts grew 8% year-on-year to 183,023. Active accounts — those with actual trading activity — numbered 24,011. It means that 's 87% of all open accounts sitting dormant, with minimal or no funds, with 83,000 accounts have zero balance. The gap is almost certainly a product of bank-run marketing campaigns that reward account opening with perks, without requiring any actual capital commitment. It creates a client count that looks like a mass market and functions like a waiting list. The average balance across all 183,023 accounts is $444 — down from $975 at end-2022. Among active traders, the figure is $3,390. The divergence between those two numbers is the real structure of this market: a small, concentrated group of well-capitalized traders generating almost all of the volume, surrounded by a large pool of nominal accounts.It reflects regulatory decisions made several years ago, when the central bank of Russia revoked licenses from a number of retail forex brokers, consolidating the domestic market around a small group of bank-affiliated dealers. Much of the retail flow moved offshore as a result, leaving the regulated segment with a narrower and more concentrated client base What This Means For the B2B Industry The Russian forex market is not a mass-market opportunity waiting to be unlocked. The roughly 40 million retail investors often cited for Russia’s stock market have no equivalent in forex.The real addressable market is the active segment — fewer than 25,000 traders with higher balances who generate the bulk of trading flow. That's where the volume is and where the competitive pressure actually plays out. Record turnover alongside 90% concentration points to a market that remains structurally limited despite rising volumes. This article was written by Tanya Chepkova at www.financemagnates.com.

Axi has reported that 46% of its client base now holds crypto as part of broader portfolios. This comes despite a three-month period of subdued volatility in the digital asset market.Singapore Summit: Meet the largest APAC brokers you know (and those you still don't!).The broker said adoption spans its crypto-related products, including perpetual contracts, CFDs, and direct crypto ownership through its “Buy Crypto” feature. The service allows clients to buy, sell, or hold cryptocurrencies on the platform. The launch comes as CFD brokers continue to expand into spot crypto offerings. Pepperstone recently launched a spot crypto exchange in Australia, offering five cryptocurrencies and two stablecoins paired against the Australian dollar. In the UK, IG Group has also entered spot crypto trading after receiving a cryptoasset licence from the Financial Conduct Authority.Traders Mix Ownership and DerivativesAxi said the shift toward spot crypto access reflects a broader industry trend and is consistent with its own client data. It pointed to a move away from purely speculative trading toward combined trading and ownership use cases. Traders, it said, are seeking simplified access to crypto markets while maintaining exposure through multiple instruments within the same platform.Clients Switch Between Crypto InstrumentsWhile derivatives remain widely used, Axi said its Buy Crypto feature is attracting first-time users by allowing leverage-free purchases. Early data indicates some traders are using crypto for portfolio diversification, with longer holding periods in certain cases.Stuart Cooke, Head of New Business at Axi, said trading behaviour is becoming more flexible. He said demand for straightforward crypto ownership is growing and noted that clients are increasingly moving between product types as conditions change. He added that the same underlying asset is now being traded in different ways, including perpetual contracts, CFDs, and direct ownership, as volatility fluctuates. Cooke said the availability of multiple formats allows clients to adjust how they access the same asset based on changing objectives. This article was written by Tareq Sikder at www.financemagnates.com.

“Ultency is not designed as a primary revenue driver, but rather as a strategic layer,” says Christoforos Theodoulou, MetaQuotes’ Chief Business Officer.Singapore Summit: Meet the largest APAC brokers you know (and those you still don't!).When MetaQuotes introduced Ultency in 2025, it inserted itself into a part of the trading technology stack that, since the early days of MT4, had been the preserve of third-party providers: the liquidity bridge. This is the infrastructure that connects brokers’ internal platforms to external liquidity pools. For decades, MetaQuotes was content to let others mind that gap.No longer.The platform provider has reportedly invested millions in a global server network to underpin the new offering. Ultency’s hosting footprint spans Equinix data centres in London, New York, Hong Kong, Singapore and Tokyo – hardly a modest undertaking.Yet the pricing model is what truly turns heads. Ultency charges a flat US$1 per US$1m traded – high volumes will even get progressive discounts – a rate that is seemingly a lot cheaper than the industry standard. Traditionally, third-party providers bill brokers per volume: the more a broker trades, the higher its infrastructure costs climbs.Which raises an obvious question. If not to recoup investment or generate profits, what exactly is MetaQuotes up to?“By lowering the cost of connectivity and simplifying infrastructure, our goal is to drive higher adoption, increase trading volumes for both brokers and liquidity providers and further strengthen the ecosystem,” Theodoulou replies.MetaQuotes Puts Pressure on Independent ProvidersMetaQuotes is not alone in muscling into the liquidity bridge business, nor in challenging its pricing orthodoxy. Match-Trade Technologies has long offered its bridge free of charge (with caveats), while in March, Spotware launched cBridge, opting for a fixed fee based on servers and connections rather than trading volume. The motivations are broadly similar, though not identical.For MetaQuotes, the move is framed as a natural evolution. In the industry’s earlier phase, brokers relied on separate bridge software to connect with liquidity providers. That arrangement worked well enough when the market was expanding rapidly and different layers of the technology stack were being built by different tech providers.“Today, however, the landscape has reached a new stage in its evolution,” says Theodoulou.At the centre of that evolution sits MT5. Data from the latest Finance Magnates Intelligence Report shows MT5 accounted for 62% of retail CFD trading volumes on MetaQuotes platforms in Q3 2025, while MT4 slipped to 38% – Ultency is strictly native to the MT5 ecosystem. “With direct interaction in broker technology, shaping trader behaviour, liquidity and pricing dynamics, as well as infrastructure performance, we are now in a position to rethink how connectivity can be better delivered,” Theodoulou says.The benefit of MetaQuote’s bundled bridge, he adds, is operational simplicity. By eliminating the need for third-party integrations, brokers can manage execution, routing, aggregation and risk from a single interface. “This removes the need for platform administrators, dealers, and risk managers having to learn and operate across multiple systems, significantly reducing operational overhead and the complexity associated with working across multiple vendors,” Theodoulou says.For Michał Karczewski, the CEO of Match Trade Technologies, the bundled bridge – MetaQuotes in particular – also enjoys a structural advantage. New brokers entering the market often begin within its ecosystem, using MT4 or MT5 by default. If a credible bridge is available within that environment, the path of least resistance is clear.“That creates real pressure on independent bridge providers who have historically relied on that early-stage relationship to build long-term revenue,” Karczewski adds.Match-Trade initially built its bridge for its own liquidity clients before deciding to externalise it in 2015. “It made sense to offer it more broadly rather than keeping it purely proprietary,” Karczewski notes. At first, the bridge was bundled tightly with Match-Trade’s liquidity offering, FX-EDGE, giving the impression that the two were inseparable. That was never the intention, Karczewski insists; brokers are free to connect to multiple liquidity providers. The bridge, though, is free only if clients use Match-Trade’s own liquidity. As a standalone product, it comes with a price tag.Nonetheless, there was another reason for externalising the bridge: the volume-based pricing system. “It is one of the consistent pain points we observe, especially among startup and smaller brokers. Those fees can be significant when margins are already thin, and they can effectively price smaller operations out of accessing institutional-grade connectivity,” Karczewski notes.The sentiment is echoed by Ilia Iarovitcyn, CEO of Spotware Systems, who argues that the shift in pricing models was inevitable, as volume-based fees have long been misaligned with the economics of bridge infrastructure. “That said,” he adds, “pricing alone does not redefine the category. Brokers still need cross-platform flexibility, clear control over routing and risk, and an interface that dealing teams can use effectively under pressure Karczewski is blunt about the underlying logic: the value capture isn’t really about monetising the bridge directly, but about winning and retaining liquidity relationships. “If a broker is getting reliable execution technology for free as part of the package, that becomes a real differentiator when they’re evaluating which liquidity provider to route their flow through,” he says.The bundled bridge, then, is less than a product and more a retention tool. The strategy also brings to mind the wall gardens erected by the big boys of Silicon Valley: lower the barrier to entry, smooth the user experience, and quietly raise the cost of exit.“There Will Always Be Someone Offering a Cheaper Product”Not everyone is convinced that cheaper is better.Tom Higgins, founder and CEO of Gold-i, a long-established player in the bridge market, views the new pricing claims with measured scepticism. When Spotware launched cBridge and touting potential cost reductions of up to 80%, he notes, the comparison was largely with the most expensive incumbents.“And that’s probably fair,” he concedes.Gold-i, which has evolved into a major player in crypto connectivity, takes a more segmented approach to pricing. It offers specialised pricing for segments such as prop trading firms, while for crypto-focused clients, the standard is a monthly fee with a generous transaction allowance. This, Higgins argues, allows the company to support both the agile startup and the institutional heavyweight without compromising on service.“There will always be someone offering a cheaper product,” he observes. “But that almost comes at the expense of reliability and support. When you buy a car, you don’t buy the cheapest one available; you buy the one that fits your needs and budget.”Elena Petersen, CEO of Your Bourse, offers a different defence of the traditional model. Volume-based pricing, she argues, can actually favour smaller brokers by aligning costs with growth.“It allows startup brokers to benefit from the full technology stack without having to commit to large monthly fees from day one,” she says.Flat fees, by contrast, may raise barriers for brokers that lack sufficient trading volume to justify even modest fixed costs. And, Petersen cautions, such pricing is rarely as simple as it appears.“They often look simple on paper but include limitations, such as trades per second, connection limits, or infrastructure tiers, which means the pricing is not always as flat as it appears,” she notes.Your Bourse, tellingly, does offer flat-fee pricing for another product in its stack, Trade Server.Who Wins in a Race to Zero?Being a pure-play bridge is increasingly precarious, particularly in a world drifting towards low or zero pricing. As Karczewski puts it, flat fees can quickly become “a race to zero”.“And in a race to zero, the parties who can afford to subsidise the technology with revenue from elsewhere – whether that is liquidity, platform licensing or data services – will almost always win.”The logical response is diversification.For Your Bourse, a pivotal moment came with the launch of its matching engine. Petersen describes it as a response to a gap in the market: while many providers aggregated liquidity, few enabled brokers to internalise client flow effectively.From there, the tech provider expanded into a broader platform-as-a-service offering, driven largely by client demand. Brokers wanted to add new asset classes, support margin accounts for B2B clients, and manage multi-currency accounts, all without building their own technology from scratch.These capabilities are now embedded in Your Bourse’s Trade Server. The roadmap extends further still, into areas such as physical conversion and advanced settlement, territory far removed from simple connectivity.As third-party providers evolved alongside their clients, they have created deepening relationships that may prove harder to dislodge than platform providers expect.The DeFI ComplicationNot all bridges are built the same, and that is especially true in the crypto space. Decentralised exchanges operate in a world that often lacks the basic trappings of conventional finance: corporate structures, customer support lines, and even email addresses. Integrating with them is no trivial task.Tom Higgins recalls Gold-i’s early foray into the space. “Initially, crypto was simply an exciting new technology, and nobody really knew where it was headed. At that time, the traditional MT4/MT5 FX broker world had little interest in crypto, so we created a separate brand – Crypto Switch – to target early crypto-native firms.”Since then, the boundaries have blurred. Traditional brokers are launching crypto exchanges, while crypto firms are acquiring MiFID-licensed brokers to offer derivatives.Gold-i eventually unified its offering, but the technical challenges remain formidable. Beyond their unconventional structures, connecting to decentralised exchanges requires translating alien APIs into formats compatible with traditional systems. “It was one of the most interesting technical challenges we’ve worked on,” Higgins says. Latency can be higher in decentralised environments, but Higgins argues that the model is viable. “Importantly,” he says, “settlement and wallet custody remain the broker’s responsibility, but we provide detailed guidance and proven architectures to ensure this can be implemented safely. This really is new market access, not just another exchange connection.”Some Just like It SimpleMichał Karczewski believes that a significant portion of the market is being overlooked in the rush to add features, particularly small- to mid-size brokers. They are simply looking for a reliable and cost-effective way to route trades to the outside world for their A book needs. “They do not need a system layered with features they will never use,” he says.Match-Trade has developed advanced tools, including intelligent order routing and VWAP-based execution, but these are optional by design. The core product remains deliberately simple.“The key principle is that these features are there when you need them – they don’t impose complexity on those who simply want clean, efficient execution,” Karczewski explains.So, What’s Next for the Bridge Space?Where, then, does all this leave the independent bridge providers?"What we are seeing now," says Iarovitcyn, "is less about pricing out third-party providers, and more about a broader reset: pricing models are changing, but so are expectations around usability, transparency and operational control." For Higgins, the answer lies partly in market segmentation. MetaQuotes’ bridge, at least for now, operates within a relatively closed loop, supporting MT5-to-MT5 connectivity. Providers like Gold-i, by contrast, position themselves as cross-platform specialists.“We serve the entire liquidity and platform ecosystem and we partner with the best providers in each category rather than limiting ourselves to a single platform,” he says.Specialisation , whether in crypto integration, institutional-grade infrastructure or bespoke solutions, offers an avenue for differentiation. And having a trusted client base, which extends to institutional players – Gold-i and Your Bourse serve both retail and institutional clients – can give the incumbent third-party providers breathing room.Petersen, for her part, welcomes the increased competition. “And we are not afraid of it. A more competitive environment pushes technology providers to build better products,” she says. “I salute MetaQuotes for continuing to develop new product suites and improving their ecosystem, as this ultimately contributes to the overall development and maturity of the industry.” Even Theodoulou acknowledges that third-party vendors will retain a role, especially when it comes to specialisation. “But,” he argues, “the baseline expectation is shifting and connectivity is becoming an embedded capability rather than a separate product.” Karczewski goes further, warning that the industry has yet to fully digest the implications of the bundled bridge.“The bundling trend is real, and it’s accelerating,” he says. And when core infrastructure is folded into broader platforms, it will inevitably alter the competitive dynamics for standalone providers. This article was written by Adonis Adoni at www.financemagnates.com.

Polish investment app XTB has signed on as Global Trading Partner of SSC Napoli for the 2025/2026 and 2026/2027 seasons, the companies said today (Tuesday), adding Italy's reigning league champions to a sports sponsorship roster that now spans football, MMA, basketball, tennis and boxing.Singapore Summit: Meet the largest APAC brokers you know (and those you still don't!)Poland's XTB Adds SSC Napoli to Sports Sponsorship PortfolioThe deal gives the Warsaw-listed fintech (WSE: XTB) exposure across Napoli's digital channels, stadium events and fan activations, according to the joint statement. Financial terms were not disclosed. To mark the launch, XTB said it will offer a free share to new Italian customers who register using the code "BENVENUTO," though the company did not specify the value of the share or the duration of the promotion.Omar Arnaout, chief executive at XTB, said the tie-up is aimed at what he called "nurturing investors' mindset among Napoli's global fan community."The deal also carries a quieter domestic angle for XTB. Napoli has built a sizable following in Poland largely on the back of Piotr Zieliński, a long-serving Poland international who spent eight seasons at the club, scored around 40 goals and made close to 300 appearances before leaving in 2024. Italy Moves Up the Priority ListItaly is one of the handful of European markets where XTB already runs a fuller product shelf than pure CFDs, having rolled out fractional shares and passive Investment Plans to local clients. The country also sits inside the regional marketing remit of Zoe Gralinska-Sakai, who joined XTB from Revolut in February as Head of Regional Marketing for the UK, France and Italy, a hire that signaled the Polish firm intended to spend more aggressively in those three markets.The Napoli deal lands at a moment when XTB is competing for European retail flows against Interactive Brokers, Robinhood, Trade Republic and eToro, all of which have either stepped up hiring on the continent or added products tailored to local investors over the past 18 months. In its home market, XTB closed 2025 with roughly 33% of all securities accounts registered with Poland's central depository, according to KDPW data, but management has made clear that future growth has to come from abroad.For Napoli, the partnership is part of a push to monetize a fan base the club estimates ranks in the top four in Italy by size. The Neapolitans won the 2024/25 Scudetto and hold four Serie A titles overall, six Coppa Italia trophies, one UEFA Cup and three Italian Super Cups, the most recent of which was lifted in December 2025. The club will mark its centenary on August 1, 2026.Tommaso Bianchini, general manager for the business area at SSC Napoli, added the partnership "fits naturally into the Club's international growth strategy" and would generate new engagement through digital activations and matchday experiences.Brokers Keep Chasing Serie AXTB is far from the first retail trading brand to bet on Italian football. eToro tied up with eight Serie A clubs for the 2021/22 season, covering Bologna, Cagliari, Genoa, Sampdoria, Sassuolo, Spezia, Udinese and Hellas Verona, before extending its European football footprint to the Premier League, Bundesliga and, most recently, four Ligue 1 clubs in France. Plus500 signed a three-year front-of-shirt deal with Atalanta BC in 2020, and CAPEX.com partnered with Juventus the same year.The Italian appetite has spilled well beyond CFD houses. Crypto exchange Gate.io became sleeve sponsor of Inter Milan in 2024, while Polish exchange zondacrypto signed with Juventus the same year. In February 2026, Ultima Markets became an Official Regional Partner of Inter Milan for Asia, its first major sports sponsorship after picking up an FCA licence in the UK. Cyprus-regulated XTrend linked up with ACF Fiorentina in 2022.Sports Spend Keeps ClimbingThe Napoli agreement adds to what has become one of the most expansive sports sponsorship portfolios in the retail brokerage industry. XTB's 2025 marketing bill rose 69.6% to PLN 584.9 million, according to the company's annual report, with online spending alone more than doubling to PLN 405 million. The broker's combined MMA footprint now includes KSW in Poland and OKTAGON across Central Europe, while its roster of ambassadors features Zlatan Ibrahimović, Iker Casillas and Conor McGregor. In December 2025, XTB also signed on as FIBA's Global Partner through 2027, covering both the Women's Basketball World Cup 2026 in Berlin and the men's tournament in Doha the following year.Just last week, FinanceMagnates.com also reported that XTB had become a sponsor of FIBA and will be one of the main sponsors during the Basketball World Cups this year and next.The payoff for that spend, at least in client numbers, has been steep. XTB ended 2025 with 2.16 million total clients, up from 1.36 million a year earlier, having added 864,286 new accounts during the year, a 73% jump over 2024. Profitability, however, has come under pressure. Profit per lot fell 21.8% to PLN 215 in 2025, and the net profit margin contracted from roughly 46% in 2024 to around 30% last year, a shift that has weighed on the share price through the early part of 2026. This article was written by Damian Chmiel at www.financemagnates.com.

PropAccount.com said it has added equities trading to its white-label prop firm platform, giving operators on its network the ability to run U.S. stock challenges alongside forex, futures, and crypto within a single infrastructure.Singapore Summit: Meet the largest APAC brokers you know (and those you still don't!)The Boca Raton company, which is powered by FPFX Tech, said the launch covers both single-session and swing-trading challenges. The four-asset setup slots into the existing onboarding, risk, KYC, and payments tools already used by partner firms, according to the company.Operators Get Equities Without New Infrastructure, Firm SaysPropAccount said the equities module runs on the same back end that handles forex, futures, and crypto across DXtrade, Match-Trader, cTrader, Rithmic, and Tradovate. For existing partners, adding stock challenges requires no new vendor integration and carries no additional cost, the company claimed. New operators can go live within seven days, a timeline PropAccount has promoted since it rolled out fully customizable challenge formats for its white-label partners in 2025.Chief executive Justin Hertzberg said the firm built the addition around demand from stock traders who have not engaged with the prop firm model."Equities are the largest traded market in the world, and traders have been underserved by the retail prop industry for too long," Hertzberg said in the announcement. He added that the inclusion lets operators reach stock traders "without forcing them to adjust to equity CFDs."Stock Challenges Were Already Spreading Across Prop FirmsPropAccount is not first into equities. A cluster of prop firms has been pushing into stock-based challenges since early 2025, testing whether a model built on forex leverage can translate to equities, where margin is lower and spreads are tighter.Blueberry Funded, backed by Australian broker Blueberry Markets, expanded its evaluation program in April 2025 to include CFD stock trading on MetaTrader 5 and DXtrade, covering more than 1,000 stocks. The Trading Pit and Trade The Pool have operated stock-focused programs for longer, with Trade The Pool offering access to over 12,000 U.S. stock and ETF symbols through the Trader Evolution platform. FXIFY and Lark Funding also run stock CFD challenges, though most of these offerings remain structured around contracts for difference rather than direct exchange access.On the infrastructure side, PropAccount's closest competitor is EBSWare, which added U.S., Hong Kong, and Indian equities to its white-label prop platform in March 2025, giving brokers a back end for stock challenges without building the plumbing themselves. EBSWare's rollout and PropAccount's launch target the same narrow segment: operators that want to sell stock challenges without assembling the technology. A $68 Trillion Market, but a Different Economic ModelPropAccount pointed to Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association data showing U.S. equity market capitalization at $68.2 trillion at year-end 2025, with average daily volume of 18.6 billion shares. The company did not provide projections for how much of that activity it expects to pull into the prop firm ecosystem.The push into stocks comes as the retail prop trading sector absorbs a period of heavy attrition. Between 80 and 100 prop firms shut down in 2024 after MetaQuotes restricted MetaTrader licenses for firms serving U.S. clients, prompting a migration to DXtrade, Match-Trader, cTrader, and TradeLocker. The sector was valued at over $10 billion in 2025, with firms paying out roughly $325 million to traders last year, according to Prop Firm Match data cited by Devexperts.FPFX Tech's own data, shared with FinanceMagnates.com in 2024, found that only 7% of traders across 300,000 prop accounts achieved payouts, with the average payout reaching 4% of plan size. Those base rates frame the economics stock challenges now have to fit into. Equities carry lower typical leverage than forex or futures, which alters both the math of the challenge fee model and the risk profile operators face on funded accounts.An Industry Still Built on Challenge FeesThe broader question for PropAccount and its rivals is whether stock-challenge economics can sustain the same margins forex and futures have generated. Payout structures across the prop industry have already come under pressure this year, with several firms restricting gold trading after metal rallies stretched budgets.Hertzberg has argued earlier that prop trading will eventually face tighter regulation, citing CySEC chair George Theocharides, who has said prop trading will fall under robust oversight at some point. Any shift in regulatory treatment of simulated equity challenges, particularly if U.S. regulators eventually classify them as securities-adjacent products, would fall more heavily on infrastructure providers like PropAccount than on single-asset operators. This article was written by Damian Chmiel at www.financemagnates.com.