Interview with EワラントFX LLC | The Editorial Policy of an Offshore FX Comparison Media Outlet and Why It Created the "Transparency Award"

FX is, by its very nature, trading that crosses national borders. Exchange rates move as each country's interest rates, monetary policy, and capital flows overlap. Even so, the information available in Japanese tends to be skewed toward a domestic perspective, and it is not easy to grasp what is happening in London, New York, or Singapore as a single flow.

"FX × Global" carries our wish to make it possible to capture the world's markets on a single screen. Delivering overseas market trends in a form that Japanese traders can understand: that is the common axis for both our media operation and our tool development.

Above all, it is "treating official information as the primary source." We always verify brokers' trading conditions and bonus details against each company's official website, terms, and materials from public bodies before writing an article. We may refer to articles from other media, but we never use them as the basis for our content.

The other is "timeliness." Offshore FX information, both spreads and bonuses, changes rapidly over short periods. Outdated information remaining on a site is itself a risk for readers. When a campaign ends or conditions change, we update the article, and we write "needs confirmation" for information we cannot verify. We believe that writing that we don't know something when we don't know it is also part of accuracy.

To be honest, we also earn revenue through partnerships with brokers. We think that saying "we are neutral" while hiding that would actually be dishonest. So we clearly state in our articles that they contain promotions, and where we have a relationship with a party, we disclose that relationship within the article.

On that basis, what we value is deciding our evaluation criteria in advance and making them public. If the criteria are visible, readers can check for themselves "why this ranking" and "why this score." Not changing the criteria depending on whether a partnership exists, and always writing about disadvantages and points of caution. Upholding these two things is our way of maintaining neutrality.

In this award to Tokubaku as well, we disclosed at the beginning of the article that we had been responsible for building its website. Precisely because there is a relationship, we decided it was necessary to publish the judging criteria and scores, and even the reasons we did not give full marks.

Because we believe what readers really want to know is not "how much they can receive" but "how much they can withdraw." Even with the same 15,000 yen bonus, some brokers attach no conditions to withdrawal, while others require trading several lots or set a withdrawal cap. If you just line up the amounts, people end up thinking "this isn't what I expected" after receiving it.

In fact, many people who stumble with offshore FX bonuses overlook fine conditions in the terms. The difference between one-way and round-trip, minimum holding times, periods after which the bonus disappears if you don't trade. We believe the role of a comparison media outlet is to make such conditions understandable at the article stage.

Of course, conditions change at the broker's discretion. That is exactly why our articles repeatedly ask readers to always check the latest conditions on the official website before applying.

It is an initiative in which we talk with people at the forefront of overseas markets, such as traders, executives of financial institutions, and market analysis experts. It covers the major FX markets, including London, New York, Singapore, and Hong Kong.

Although you can learn about currency movements from the news, it is hard to read in Japanese "how people inside the market see them." We want to deliver the thinking and decision-making criteria behind the numbers in the form of interviews.

Our broker interviews follow the same thinking. Rather than one-sidedly introducing the features of a service, we ask why it chose that mechanism and what challenges it faces. The purpose of our interviews is to increase the material readers have for making their own judgments.

We develop custom indicators, automated trading EAs, risk management tools, and so on, tailored to the requests of those who commission us. Most consultations come from people who cannot fully reproduce their own rules with off-the-shelf tools, or who want to turn judgments they make manually into a system.

What we value in development is clarifying "what the tool is for looking at." Packing in too many features can actually make judgment waver. A tool is only there to assist judgment; it does not promise profits. After conveying that premise, we design together something that fits the user's rules.

Facing readers' questions in our media also benefits our tool development. Because we see where traders stumble through our daily article production, I think our strength is being able to translate that into features.

For a financial website, "not creating misunderstandings" matters more than how good the design looks. The impression users take away can change greatly depending on just how a number is presented. Are conditions and points of caution being pushed into inconspicuous places? We pay particular attention to that.

In Tokubaku's case, its thinking of "publishing the rebate rate" and "making transfer records verifiable" was clear from the start. What we handled was creating a website form that conveys that thinking directly to users. We consciously designed a structure in which conditions and points of caution easily catch users' eyes.

Of course, it was Tokubaku itself that decided what kind of mechanism to adopt. Our position is that we supported it on the production side so that the mechanism would be conveyed correctly to users.

Many comparison media create rankings based on "how good a deal it is." That in itself is useful information for readers, but the question "can that number be trusted?" tends to be left behind. We created the award program because we wanted to evaluate the integrity of services with a yardstick separate from how good a deal they are.

The Transparency Award evaluates not the size of rebate or bonus amounts, but whether users can verify the mechanisms and numbers themselves. Judging was based on published terms and explanations and the specifications of the member page, with each of five criteria scored out of 5 points. Tokubaku scored 23 points in total and won in the Cashback Category.

What was rated highly was that it publishes its rebate rate of 90% of the IB reward, that on-chain records can be verified with the TxID of each transfer, and that it states in advance that even if it changes conditions, it will not reduce past amounts. On the other hand, for disclosure of conflicts of interest and guidance for users, we felt there was room to communicate more clearly, so we gave 4 points. We believe that writing even the reasons for not giving full marks leads to trust in the award itself.

Offshore FX has features not found in domestic FX, such as high leverage and bonuses, but on the other hand many brokers are not registered with Japan's Financial Services Agency, and Japan's investor protection system does not apply. We do not want to introduce only the good side without conveying that fact.

For that reason, our website clearly states its intended readers and recommends that people living in Japan use domestic brokers registered with the Financial Services Agency. In our articles as well, we make sure to write about brokers' licenses, risks, and disadvantages without omitting them.

Rather than asking readers to "believe what is written," we hand them "material to verify it." We believe our responsibility as those who handle information is to have readers then choose by their own judgment.

First, we will further raise the freshness and accuracy of our information as a comparison media outlet. Precisely because offshore FX conditions change easily, we want to combine speed of updates with the integrity of writing that information we cannot verify is unverified.

We also want to expand EワラントFX Award beyond the Cashback Category into other areas. Even then, we will not change the format of publishing the judging criteria, scores, and reasons for not giving full marks. At the same time, through expert interviews and FX tool development, we will broaden an environment in which overseas markets can be understood in Japanese.

We would like all traders, whatever information source they use, to keep in mind "what is the basis for that number?" and "is there a way to verify it?" Don't be dazzled by the size of bonus or rebate amounts; understand the conditions and risks, and then choose the service that suits you. We would be glad if EワラントFX's information helps as material for that judgment.