Home -

Main body -

WikiFX Express

FXFP

WikiFX | 2026-04-20 23:27

Abstract：FXFP, whose full name is FIDANTE PARTNERS LIMITED, claims to be domiciled in Australia. However, the broker's supervision has lapsed. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission pass-through licence (STP) it holds is suspected to be a duplicate, and its current status is determined to be a suspected clone. Therefore, the broker is not under the supervision of any legal agency, is a complete fund disk fraud, please stay away from the fraud.

Is FXFP a Scam？

Scam Brokers List

FXFP has been included in WikiFX's black platform list, traders are advised to stay away from this scam and beware of the following domain:

https://www.fxfps.com/

Regulatory concerns

FXFP, whose full name is FIDANTE PARTNERS LIMITED, claims to be domiciled in Australia.

However, the broker's supervision has lapsed. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission pass-through licence (STP) it holds is suspected to be a duplicate, and its current status is determined to be a suspected clone.

Therefore, the broker is not under the supervision of any legal agency, is a complete fund disk fraud, please stay away from the fraud.

Current Status	Suspicious Clone
Regulated by	Australia
License Type	Straight Through Processing (STP)
License No.	234668
Licensed Institution	FIDANTE PARTNERS LIMITED

Scam Disclosure

There is very limited disclosure of fraud information about FXFP.But a check of the brokerage's official website, https://www.fxfps.com/, showed that the domain had not yet been registered. So the broker is probably a scam.

Investors should stay away from it completely.

Broker Dealer

Related broker

Scam Brokers

FXFP

Company name：FIDANTE PARTNERS LIMITED.

Score

1.22

Website：http://www.fxfps.com/index.php/En/index.html

Scam Brokers | 5-10 years | Questionable Regulatory License | Suspicious Operational Region

Score

1.22

eToro Review 2026: Why Some Users Report Withdrawal Problems - and What the Evidence Shows

eToro, a United Kingdom-based brokerage entity, is facing serious user allegations concerning the basic facility a trader expects - Fund Withdrawal. Users worldwide are complaining about the lack of a withdrawal option, account restriction, and lack of customer support in real time. Many of their complaints appeared on credible broker review platforms such as WikiFX. In this eToro review, we have examined these complaints.

Original 2026-08-03 21:44

Fortex White Label in 2026: Can Your Liquidity Stack Scale Without Losing Control?

A Fortex white label can look like the fastest route to a modern branded trading environment, but a fast launch is not the same as a controlled launch. This 2026 broker guide explains what the Fortex platform is, where a Fortex broker solution can sit in a wider operating stack, and how to evaluate the difference between a white label, a server licence, and a connected CRM or Client Office setup. It also unpacks Fortex cost beyond the monthly headline, including implementation, integration, support, data, governance, migration, and exit assumptions. Use the practical questions, workflow tests, comparison table, and launch checklist to assess a Fortex provider without mistaking a feature demo for evidence that your brokerage can run the service safely at scale.

Original 2026-08-03 19:51

Spreadex Review: Wider Spread & Unexplained Account Closure Allegations for This 2-Decade-Old Broker

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.

Original 2026-07-29 21:01

cTrader White Label Platform: A Practical Guide for Broker Evaluation and Multi-Asset Expansion in 2

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.

Original 2026-07-29 17:36