Editorial standards

Our commitments

Accuracy. We publish only what our evidence supports, and we say how strong that evidence is.
Fairness. We describe findings neutrally, label them precisely and give firms the chance to respond.
Independence. Our assessments are not for sale, and commercial considerations play no part in them.
Transparency. Our methodology, our sources and our corrections are public.

How an assessment is made

We gather evidence, recording every source with its type, its publisher, its date and what it supports.
We answer each criterion of the methodology, citing evidence for every answer.
The score and confidence level are calculated from those answers by published rules. Nobody, including us, can type in or adjust a score.
Before publication, every answer and source is checked against the methodology. Our system will not publish an assessment while any judgement lacks a source or the summary is missing.
The assessment is published with its review date and the methodology version it used, and stored exactly as published.

Evidence

We prefer primary records: regulators’ registers and decisions, court records and official filings. A firm’s own documents tell us what it promises; its marketing tells us only what it claims. Information sent to us by members of the public is a lead, kept private, and never the sole basis for anything we publish. We never publish a warning, enforcement action or legal finding without checking it against the issuing body’s own record. The full evidence standard is in the methodology.

How we use AI tools

We use AI tools to help with research: to search registers, regulators’ decisions and company documents, to extract and cross-check details, and to draft text. They do not decide anything. Every published fact is tied to a source you can check, and before anything is published a person on our team reviews it against the cited sources. Scores are calculated from those reviewed answers by our published rules, and on-site verification is always carried out in person.

Language

We distinguish between a regulator’s warning, an allegation, a complaint, an enforcement action and a final legal finding, and we label each one for what it is. We do not use “scam” as a label. We report allegations only where they are relevant, labelled as unproven, and with the firm’s response where it has given one.

Right of reply

Any firm can respond to its profile, its assessment or any finding, and we publish responses alongside what they respond to, subject to legal review. Before we publish an investigation that makes adverse findings about a named firm, we put those findings to the firm and give it reasonable time to respond. A response changes a score only if it leads to new evidence and a new assessment. How firms can respond.

Corrections

When we get something wrong, we correct it promptly and say so. Every correction to a profile, an assessment or an article is dated and listed in our corrections log. We never change a published score silently: a published assessment is either replaced by a new assessment, which supersedes it, or withdrawn with a public explanation. Superseded and withdrawn assessments remain available for the record.

To report an error, use the error report form or our contact form.

On-site verification

Most of our profiles are research-based assessments: they rest on documented public information and the sources we cite, and they do not imply an office visit or hands-on testing. A company can also commission the TTI On-Site Verification & 30-Day Platform Review: an office visit, meetings with company staff, identity and regulatory-record checks, and structured testing of a specified platform over at least 30 days, followed by a published report. How the programme works.

What the badge means: The Trading Trust Index Verification Badge confirms that the specified company and platform completed our assessment and met our published requirements at the time of review. It does not constitute regulatory approval or guarantee the safety of funds or future performance.
How it is decided: against requirements we publish before applications open. We record the reasons for every approval and refusal, and publish them in the report. Nothing about the decision depends on payment.
How it relates to the score and the directory: the badge decision is separate from the trust score. Our methodology gives trust points for what we verify in person, such as a real, staffed office rather than a ghost address, and for the outcomes of our testing. They are scored on what we find, whether it helps the firm or not; the fee earns no points. Firms that hold a current verification are listed first in the directory, marked with the badge. An assessment never removes or softens a substantiated finding.
How it is funded: The company pays for the assessment process and reporting. Payment does not guarantee badge approval, a favourable review, or a higher trust score. Company-funded assessments are disclosed in the published report. Each company-funded report states: “The company allowed and funded our visit and testing. We kept full control of the methodology, the findings and the verification decision.”
The company’s role: before publication the company can point out factual errors and respond. It has no control over our findings or decision, and its response is published as its own statement. We publish the report whatever the outcome.
Validity and withdrawal: A badge is valid for 12 months from the approval date, unless we withdraw it earlier because material information changes. We do not monitor the company continuously in between. If we withdraw a review, we publish the reason and log it in our corrections.

Contributors

Alongside the work of our editorial team, we publish educational articles by vetted contributors: practitioners such as risk managers, compliance officers, lawyers, trading educators and financial journalists.

Vetting: before a contributor’s first article we confirm their identity and professional background, review the interests they declare and assess their writing. Their profile shows when we vetted them and what we checked.
Declared interests: contributors tell us whom they work for or earn from in the trading industry, and tell us when that changes. We publish what they declare on their profile and with each of their articles.
Educational only: contributors explain; they do not recommend firms, products, services or trades. They never write about a firm they work for, earn from or compete with, and their articles carry no links to one.
Separate from our assessments: contributors take no part in our research on firms, our findings or our trust scores.
Editing and fact-checking: our editorial team edits every contributed article and checks it against its sources, to the same standards as our own work, including our rules on AI tools and corrections. The contributor approves the final version, and the article says who edited it.
Ending a contribution: we stop working with a contributor who breaks these rules. A former contributor’s articles stay published and accurate, and their profile says they no longer write for us.

Conflicts of interest

We do not hold financial interests in firms we assess. If a conflict ever arises, we disclose it on the firm’s profile or do not assess the firm.
We do not accept gifts or hospitality from firms we cover. The only payments we accept from firms are fees for on-site verification assessments, as described above.
Commercial relationships are kept apart from our research. A fee never buys a score, a finding, a profile or a position: on-site points follow only what we verify in person, as described above.

Commercial and advertising policy

No firm can pay to be listed, to buy a score, or to remove or soften a substantiated finding.
Paying for an on-site verification assessment does not guarantee the badge, a favourable report or any score points. Points for what we verify in person, and the verified group at the top of the directory, follow the outcome, as our methodology and listing policy set out.
Firm profiles and assessments carry no affiliate links. Links to firms’ websites pay us nothing; they let the firm see that the visit came from Trading Trust Index, and nothing about the reader.
If we introduce advertising, sponsorship or affiliate links elsewhere, they will be visibly labelled, kept separate from assessments, and never placed on a firm’s own profile.
Customers of any future data or research products receive the same assessments as everyone else, published at the same time.
Firms may quote their current score only with its review date and a link to their live profile. A company with an approved, in-date TTI verification may display the Trading Trust Index Verification Badge, linked to its assessment, for the legal entity, office and platform assessed. Nobody may describe a firm as approved, endorsed, certified as safe or guaranteed by Trading Trust Index.

Complaints about our work

If you think we have fallen short of these standards, tell us. We will review your complaint against these standards, reply, and log a correction if we got something wrong.