Abstract:FMA is concerned that EcoMarkets may be operating a scam

FMA is concerned that EcoMarkets may be operating a scam, for the following reasons:
EcoMarkets is not registered in New Zealand, nor listed on the Financial Service Providers Register (FSPR).
Investors are unable to withdraw funds, after repeated requests.
EcoMarkets provide a link to a web-based platform, where the representative of EcoMarkets show investors how to trade, through phone or zoom calls.
Complainants have found fictitious amounts and profits being displayed on the platform.
EcoMarkets discourage investors paying with their MasterCard or Visa card - these card providers allow chargebacks within 540 days from transactions.
EcoMarkets caught the attention of complainants through their advertisements on social media platforms, such as Facebook.
FMA recommend exercising caution if dealing with this entity or their representatives James Martin and Adam Green.
Entity name & website: EcoMarkets; EcoMarkets.com
Email: support@ecomarkets.com
Address: Overschiestraat 65, 1062 XD Amsterdam, Netherlands
Phone: International +31 0102005641, Australia 0272538449, United Kingdom 01615271075

Did you incur trading losses on the Spreadex platform due to wider spreads? Have you experienced delays in trade processing by the United Kingdom-based forex broker? Has your Spreadex trading account been closed without any explanation? You are not alone! Many traders have expressed concerns on online broker review platforms. In this Spreadex review 2026, we have covered user allegations and provided a regulatory framework the broker operates under.

A broker can launch a white-label platform quickly and still fail the first serious operating test. The failure often begins quietly: an assets expansion has been approved, the client app is branded, and a new account journey looks complete. Then a client asks why a trade-related status, funding hand-off, or account restriction looks different across channels. Support cannot see the same reference trail as operations. The product owns the screen, but no one owns the explanation. The issue is not a missing feature. It is an untested operating model. That is why a cTrader white label platform should be evaluated as a route to a multi-asset service - not as a shortcut to a more attractive terminal. The central question is whether the broker can add instruments, client channels, integrations, and service capacity without making its controls harder to operate or explain.

This Trading Pro broker review checks the FCA warning, Indonesia blocklist evidence, licence claims, and what South Asian users should verify before depositing.
The visible fee in an MT4 white label proposal is rarely the real cost of operating it. For an existing broker, the decision is not simply whether an MT4 white label platform is “cheap” or “expensive.” The real question is whether the commercial model remains viable after integration, support, data, client migration, compliance, and exit costs are included. That is why an MT4 white label cost review should be built as a 24- to 36-month operating case. It should compare three credible choices: 1. Keep the present MT4 setup and improve its weakest controls. 2. Replace the MT4 white label provider but retain the client proposition. 3. Migrate selected clients or products to another platform while running MT4 in parallel. This guide explains how to build that case without relying on headline prices or generic vendor claims.