How We Calculate Trust Score | BinaryDiaries.com
Last Updated: May 2026 | Methodology Review: Quarterly
What the Trust Score Is and Why It Exists
Every broker, prop firm, signal service, and trading platform reviewed on BinaryDiaries.com receives two distinct evaluations. The first is our standard category score, which measures performance across dimensions such as platform quality, customer support, asset range, and pricing. The second — and in many respects the more important of the two — is our Trust Score.
The Trust Score is a single numerical rating expressed on a scale of 0 to 100 that answers one specific question: how safe is it to give this entity your money?
Not how good the platform looks. Not how competitive the spreads are. Not how attractive the challenge structure is. Specifically and only: if you deposit funds with this broker, fund a challenge with this prop firm, or pay a subscription to this platform, what is the probability — based on everything we can independently verify — that you will be treated fairly, that your money will be protected, that the rules will be applied consistently, and that you will be able to withdraw what you are entitled to?
The Trust Score exists because platform quality and trustworthiness are not the same thing. A broker can offer a genuinely excellent trading environment, competitive pricing, and a wide asset range while simultaneously holding client funds in an unsegregated account, operating under a regulatory framework that provides traders with no meaningful protection, and maintaining terms and conditions designed to give the firm maximum discretion to deny withdrawals. A trader who selects that broker based on platform quality alone has made a potentially catastrophic decision.
The Trust Score cuts through everything else. It is the number that answers the question every trader should ask first, before any other evaluation criterion is considered.
What the Trust Score Is Not
Before describing how the Trust Score is calculated, it is important to be precise about what it does not measure, because misunderstanding its scope is as dangerous as ignoring it.
The Trust Score is not a measure of profitability. A high Trust Score does not mean you will make money trading with this entity. It means the entity is unlikely to steal your money, arbitrarily deny your withdrawal, or disappear with your funds. Whether you make money depends on your own trading decisions.
The Trust Score is not a recommendation to trade. An entity can score 85 out of 100 on Trust and still be an inappropriate choice for a given trader based on account minimums, available instruments, regulatory jurisdiction, or any number of other factors.
The Trust Score is not permanent. It is a measurement of an entity’s trustworthiness at a specific point in time, based on the information available at the time of evaluation. Trust Scores are recalculated at defined intervals and in response to trigger events. An entity that scores 80 today can score 45 in six months if its regulatory status changes, its payout behavior deteriorates, or a pattern of verified trader complaints emerges.
The Trust Score is not an opinion. It is a structured calculation based on weighted, independently verified data points. It does not reflect how much we like a firm’s branding, how responsive their marketing team was, or how prominent their advertising presence is on our platform. Commercial relationships between BinaryDiaries.com and the entity under evaluation have zero influence on Trust Score calculations.
The Architecture of the Trust Score
The Trust Score is built on five pillars. Each pillar addresses a distinct dimension of trustworthiness, is weighted according to its relative importance to trader safety, and is composed of multiple independently scored sub-components. The five pillars and their weightings are:
| Pillar | Weighting |
| Regulatory Standing & Legal Framework | 35% |
| Financial Safety & Fund Protection | 25% |
| Operational Conduct & Payout Integrity | 20% |
| Transparency & Disclosure | 12% |
| Complaint History & Reputation | 8% |
Each pillar is scored on a scale of 0 to 100. The weighted pillar scores are combined to produce the final Trust Score, also expressed on a scale of 0 to 100.
Pillar One — Regulatory Standing & Legal Framework (35%)
Regulation is the single most important determinant of trader safety. It is weighted most heavily in our Trust Score because it is the dimension over which the entity has the most direct control and the one whose absence creates the most severe and irreversible risk to trader capital.
Regulation matters for three distinct reasons. First, it imposes minimum standards of conduct that the entity must meet or face sanctions. Second, it provides traders with an independent avenue for dispute resolution when the entity does not resolve complaints fairly. Third, it may entitle traders to compensation if the entity becomes insolvent. None of these protections exist in any meaningful form outside of genuine regulatory oversight.
We assess regulatory standing across the following sub-components:
Regulatory Tier Classification
We maintain a five-tier classification of global financial regulators based on the stringency of their licensing requirements, the robustness of their ongoing supervision, the availability of trader compensation schemes, and their track record of enforcement.
Tier 1 regulators — the FCA in the United Kingdom, CySEC across the European Union, ASIC in Australia, the MAS in Singapore, and the FINMA in Switzerland — impose capital adequacy requirements, mandatory client fund segregation, negative balance protection for retail traders, and participation in investor compensation schemes. Entities regulated exclusively by Tier 1 authorities receive the maximum available score in this sub-component.
Tier 2 regulators — including the FSB in South Africa, the FSCA, the FSA in Japan, and equivalent bodies in major emerging market jurisdictions — impose meaningful but less comprehensive oversight. Entities regulated by Tier 2 authorities receive a materially lower score in this sub-component than those regulated at Tier 1, but significantly higher than those regulated further down the scale.
Tier 3 regulators — bodies in jurisdictions such as Belize, Vanuatu, Seychelles, and Mauritius — impose minimal licensing requirements, conduct limited ongoing supervision, and provide traders with negligible practical protection. These jurisdictions are frequently chosen by entities that want the appearance of regulation without the substance of it. Regulation exclusively at Tier 3 results in a significantly penalized score.
Tier 4 covers entities registered but not actively licensed in any jurisdiction with meaningful financial services oversight. Tier 5 covers entities operating with no verifiable regulatory status of any kind. Entities falling into Tier 4 or Tier 5 cannot achieve a Trust Score above 35 out of 100 regardless of performance in other pillars.
Multi-Jurisdictional Regulatory Coverage
Entities regulated in multiple Tier 1 or Tier 2 jurisdictions receive additional credit in this sub-component. Multi-jurisdictional regulation indicates that the entity has voluntarily submitted to oversight in several demanding regulatory environments simultaneously, which increases the cost of regulatory non-compliance and reduces the risk of the entity simply relocating to a more permissive jurisdiction in response to regulatory pressure.
Regulatory History — Sanctions and Enforcement Actions
We search every major regulatory database for historical enforcement actions, sanctions, warnings, fines, and license suspensions or revocations involving the entity under evaluation. This search covers the FCA register, CySEC decisions, ASIC enforcement actions, CFTC and NFA disciplinary records, and equivalent databases globally.
A single minor historical sanction that has been resolved and remediated is noted in our assessment but does not automatically reduce the Trust Score significantly. A pattern of enforcement actions, an unresolved major sanction, or a license revocation in any jurisdiction results in a severe reduction in this sub-component score. An active regulatory warning from any Tier 1 or Tier 2 regulator at the time of evaluation results in an automatic Trust Score cap.
Legal Entity Verification
We independently verify the legal entity operating the entity under evaluation. This includes confirming the company registration number, the jurisdiction of incorporation, the identifiable directors or principals, and the operational history of the legal entity. Entities operated by anonymous principals, entities whose legal structure cannot be independently verified, or entities that have changed legal structure frequently in ways consistent with regulatory evasion receive significantly penalized scores in this sub-component.
Prop Firm Specific — Legal Framework Assessment
Proprietary trading firms operate in a regulatory grey area that requires a modified assessment framework. Since most prop firms are not required to hold financial services licenses, we assess the legal framework governing the relationship between the firm and its traders specifically: whether the challenge agreement constitutes a legally enforceable contract in the firm’s stated jurisdiction, whether the payout obligation is a legally binding commitment or a discretionary decision, and whether the firm’s terms and conditions have been reviewed and are enforceable under the governing law specified.
Pillar Two — Financial Safety & Fund Protection (25%)
An entity can hold all the appropriate licenses and still fail to protect client funds in practice. Pillar Two assesses the specific mechanisms through which trader capital is protected — or not protected — at the operational level.
Client Fund Segregation
We verify whether the entity holds client deposits in accounts that are legally separated from the firm’s own operating funds. Genuine segregation means that if the firm becomes insolvent, client funds cannot be used to satisfy the claims of the firm’s creditors. This is a binary assessment: either the entity can demonstrate genuine, verified segregation through documentation and regulatory confirmation, or it cannot.
Entities that claim segregation without independent verification, that use the language of segregation in marketing materials while maintaining structures that comingle funds in practice, or that operate in jurisdictions where segregation is not independently audited receive a significantly reduced score in this sub-component.
Investor Compensation Scheme Participation
We assess whether traders are entitled to compensation from a government-backed or regulator-administered investor compensation scheme in the event of entity insolvency. In the United Kingdom, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme protects eligible clients up to £85,000. In the European Union, equivalent schemes protect up to €20,000 under the Investor Compensation Schemes Directive. In Australia, no direct equivalent exists, which is reflected in the sub-component score for ASIC-only regulated entities.
Entities regulated in jurisdictions with no investor compensation scheme, or entities whose structure means traders are not eligible for scheme protection even where the scheme exists, receive a reduced score in this sub-component.
Capital Adequacy & Financial Stability Indicators
Where accessible, we assess publicly available indicators of the entity’s financial stability. For publicly traded or publicly reporting entities, this includes review of published financial statements, capital adequacy ratios, and regulatory capital disclosures. For private entities without public reporting obligations, we assess indirect indicators including the entity’s operational history, the transparency of its ownership structure, and the absence of indicators of financial distress such as delayed payouts, unilateral fee changes, or unexplained operational restrictions.
We do not claim to perform full financial due diligence on private entities, and we do not present our financial stability assessment as equivalent to a formal audit. We are transparent about the limitations of this sub-component where information is restricted, and we weight it accordingly.
Negative Balance Protection
We verify whether the entity provides genuine negative balance protection for retail traders — ensuring that a trader’s losses cannot exceed the funds deposited in their account. For forex and CFD brokers operating under Tier 1 regulation, negative balance protection is mandatory for retail clients. We verify that it is implemented correctly and applies to the account types most commonly used by retail traders, not only to specific account categories designed to capture the regulatory requirement on paper while directing most traders to accounts without the protection.
Withdrawal Infrastructure Assessment
We assess the infrastructure supporting the entity’s withdrawal process. This includes the range of withdrawal methods available, the documented processing timeframes, the minimum and maximum withdrawal thresholds, and whether the entity maintains sufficient liquidity to process withdrawals promptly under normal operating conditions. Entities with a narrow range of withdrawal options, very high minimum withdrawal thresholds, or documented histories of withdrawal delays attributable to operational rather than verification reasons receive reduced scores in this sub-component.
Pillar Three — Operational Conduct & Payout Integrity (20%)
An entity’s regulatory status and fund protection structures determine the theoretical safety of trader capital. Its operational conduct determines what actually happens to that capital in practice. Pillar Three assesses the entity’s real-world behavior toward its traders, particularly in the moments that matter most — when a trader wants to withdraw money, when a dispute arises, or when the entity faces a commercial incentive to act against the trader’s interests.
Withdrawal Compliance Testing
This is the most directly weighted sub-component in Pillar Three. We conduct live withdrawal testing as part of every full evaluation, and the results are recorded and fed directly into this sub-component score. We assess:
Whether our own withdrawal request was processed within the stated timeframe. Whether the amount received matched the amount requested minus any clearly disclosed fees. Whether any condition was imposed at the point of withdrawal that was not disclosed at account opening. Whether the process required excessive documentation beyond reasonable KYC requirements. Whether any attempt was made — through support communication, retention bonuses, or other mechanisms — to discourage or delay the withdrawal rather than process it promptly.
Failure on any of these dimension’s results in a material reduction in this sub-component score. A withdrawal that was not processed at all, or that was processed significantly outside the stated timeframe without a specific and verifiable reason, results in the maximum sub-component penalty.
Rule Consistency — Prop Firms
For proprietary trading firms, this sub-component includes a specific assessment of whether challenge rules are applied consistently and, in the manner, described at the time of purchase. We assess this through our own challenge testing, through structured analysis of verified trader complaints, and through specific examination of the firm’s track record in applying rules at or near payout eligibility — the point at which the financial incentive to find a rule breach is highest.
Any documented pattern of rule application that is selectively strict at payout time, that invokes ambiguous or newly added conditions to deny funded accounts, or that results in account closure without a specific and documented rule breach referenced by the firm results in the maximum sub-component penalty.
Trade Execution Integrity — Brokers
For forex and options brokers, this sub-component assesses whether trade execution is conducted in a manner consistent with the broker’s stated execution model and in the trader’s best interests. We assess whether price feeds are accurate relative to benchmark market data, whether execution speeds are consistent across different market conditions, whether there is evidence of stop hunting or requoting practices, and whether the broker’s proprietary risk management creates execution conditions that differ materially from what a trader reasonably expects based on the broker’s marketing.
Conduct During Disputes
We assess how the entity behaves when a trader raises a legitimate dispute. Our evaluation includes structured dispute simulation scenarios conducted during our support testing process, analysis of verified trader complaints submitted to regulatory bodies and independent consumer platforms, and review of the entity’s published complaints handling procedure. Entities that handle disputes by applying contractual technicalities selectively, delaying resolution without substantive engagement, or pressuring traders to accept settlement terms below what they are entitled to receive significantly penalized scores in this sub-component.
Platform Reliability Under Pressure
We assess platform performance specifically during high-volatility market periods — the conditions under which platform failures are most likely to occur and have the most significant financial consequences for traders. We record and assess every platform incident, outage, or anomalous execution event observed during our evaluation period. Entities whose platforms experience material failures during major economic data releases or other foreseeable high-volatility events receive reduced scores in this sub-component.
Pillar Four — Transparency & Disclosure (12%)
Transparency is not merely an ethical virtue in financial services — it is a functional safety mechanism. An entity that discloses its fees completely, writes its terms in accessible language, explains its risk management model honestly, and publishes its regulatory credentials prominently is an entity that is confident its practices can withstand scrutiny. An entity that obscures fees, buries material conditions in dense legal language, and presents regulatory status ambiguously is an entity that has something to hide.
Fee and Cost Transparency
We assess whether all costs associated with trading with the entity — spreads, commissions, overnight financing charges, inactivity fees, withdrawal fees, and any other recurring or conditional charge — are disclosed completely and accurately before account opening. We compare stated costs against observed costs during our live evaluation period and flag any discrepancy. Entities whose actual costs materially exceed what is disclosed in pre-opening documentation receive the maximum sub-component penalty.
Terms and Conditions Clarity
We assess the readability and fairness of the entity’s terms and conditions. This assessment covers the language used — whether it is accessible to a retail trader without legal training — the prominence of material conditions — whether clauses that significantly restrict trader rights are clearly signposted or buried — and the substance of those conditions — whether any clause grants the entity discretionary powers over trader accounts, payouts, or rule interpretation that are unreasonably broad.
Every clause we identify as materially unfair is flagged in the published review. The volume and severity of flagged clauses directly reduce the score in this sub-component.
Regulatory Credential Disclosure
We assess whether the entity displays its regulatory license numbers, the names of its regulatory authorities, and links to the relevant regulatory register entries prominently on its website — not only in a footer or a terms and conditions document. An entity that is genuinely regulated under a meaningful framework has nothing to lose by making that information easy for traders to verify. An entity that makes regulatory credential verification difficult is creating a barrier that serves only the entity, not the trader.
Risk Warning Adequacy
We assess whether risk warnings are accurate, specific, and prominently displayed. This includes the percentage of retail accounts that lose money — where this disclosure is mandated by regulation — and whether this figure is presented honestly or minimized through formatting, placement, or framing. Entities that display loss percentages in small text, in footer disclaimers only, or in ways designed to make them easy to overlook receive reduced scores in this sub-component.
Ownership and Corporate Transparency
We assess whether the entity discloses its corporate structure, its beneficial ownership, and the identities of its key principals in a way that allows traders to verify who is ultimately responsible for the operation. Anonymous or obscured ownership is treated as a significant negative indicator throughout our Trust Score methodology and is weighted most heavily here.
Pillar Five — Complaint History & Reputation (8%)
The experiences of real traders who have used an entity over an extended period are evidence that no amount of documentation review or short-term testing can fully replicate. Pillar Five aggregates and analyses this evidence systematically.
Regulatory Complaint Records
We search the publicly accessible complaint and enforcement databases of every major regulator in jurisdictions where the entity is licensed or operates. We assess the volume of complaints filed, the nature of those complaints — whether they involve withdrawal problems, rule disputes, execution issues, or fraud allegations — and how the entity has responded to formally filed complaints. We also assess the ratio of complaints to the entity’s estimated active trader base, since a high absolute complaint volume at a very large entity may represent a lower complaint rate than a moderate absolute volume at a smaller firm.
Verified Independent Review Analysis
We systematically analyse verified trader reviews on independent platforms where review authenticity can be assessed — platforms that require proof of trading experience or use verified purchase confirmation as a condition of review submission. We do not treat the raw aggregate rating on these platforms as a reliable signal — ratings can be manipulated through organized positive review campaigns. Instead, we analyze the specific content of negative reviews, looking for patterns in the complaints raised, the consistency of the issues described, and the entity’s responses to those complaints.
We specifically discount review platforms where the entity has a commercial relationship that could create an incentive for the platform to moderate negative reviews — a widespread practice in the financial review industry that we identify and account for in our analysis.
Trader Community Intelligence
We monitor relevant trader communities — professional forums, verified social trading networks, and specialist discussion groups — for organic complaint patterns about the entities we evaluate. We do not treat unverified individual complaints as confirmed findings, but a consistent pattern of similar complaints across multiple independent sources — particularly complaints about withdrawal problems, rule changes, or account closures — is treated as a significant signal and investigated further before being weighted in this sub-component.
Complaint Trend Analysis
We assess not only the current volume and nature of complaints but the direction of travel. An entity that had moderate complaint volumes two years ago but has experienced a sharp increase in the past six months is exhibiting a pattern that matters more than the historical average. Our Trust Score calculation weights recent complaint trends more heavily than older complaint history, since recent behavior is the strongest available predictor of near-term conduct.
Entity Response Quality
We assess how the entity responds to publicly visible complaints — whether it engages substantively and attempts resolution, whether it responds with generic dismissals, or whether it ignores public complaints entirely. An entity that takes visible steps to resolve complaints publicly, acknowledges when it has made errors, and demonstrates a pattern of genuine remediation receives credit in this sub-component. An entity that responds to every negative review with a template denial or does not respond at all receives the maximum sub-component penalty.
How the Trust Score Is Calculated — Step by Step
Step One — Sub-Component Scoring
Every sub-component within each pillar is scored independently on a scale of 0 to 100 by our research team, based on the specific evidence gathered during the evaluation process. Sub-component scores are recorded with the specific evidence that supports them. A sub-component score cannot be awarded without documented evidence.
Step Two — Pillar Score Calculation
Sub-component scores within each pillar are combined using pillar-specific internal weightings to produce a single pillar score on a scale of 0 to 100. The internal weightings within each pillar reflect the relative importance of each sub-component to the overall dimension the pillar measures. For example, within Pillar Three, the withdrawal compliance testing sub-component carries materially higher internal weight than the platform reliability sub-component, because withdrawal compliance is more directly predictive of trader safety outcomes.
Step Three — Weighted Trust Score Calculation
The five pillar scores are combined using the pillar weightings described above to produce the preliminary Trust Score.
Step Four — Automatic Adjustment Triggers
Certain findings trigger automatic adjustments to the preliminary Trust Score, regardless of the weighted calculation result. These adjustments reflect the fact that some indicators of untrustworthiness are so severe that the weighted average methodology — which can produce a moderate score even when one pillar is very low — would understate the risk to traders.
Automatic downward adjustment triggers include an active regulatory warning or enforcement action from a Tier 1 or Tier 2 regulator, confirmed evidence of withdrawal denial without contractual basis, confirmed evidence of fraudulent performance claims in marketing materials, confirmed evidence of client fund misappropriation, and confirmed operation under a false or deceptive regulatory claim.
Entities triggering one or more automatic adjustment factors receive a Trust Score that cannot exceed the maximum cap associated with the most severe trigger present, regardless of the weighted calculation result.
Step Five — Trust Score Publication
The final Trust Score is published alongside the entity’s full evaluation, with a breakdown of the pillar scores that contributed to it and a plain-language explanation of the most significant factors — positive and negative — that determined the final result. We do not publish a Trust Score without this accompanying explanation, because a number without context is not useful information.
The Trust Score Scale — What Each Range Means
| Trust Score | Classification | What It Means for Traders |
| 85 – 100 | Highly Trusted | Strong regulatory framework, verified fund protection, consistent payout record, high transparency. Suitable for traders prioritizing safety above all other factors. |
| 70 – 84 | Trusted | Solid regulatory standing with minor gaps. Good operational conduct with isolated historical concerns. Appropriate for most retail traders with standard due diligence. |
| 55 – 69 | Conditionally Trusted | Meaningful regulatory or operational limitations. Proceed with awareness of specific risk factors disclosed in the full review. Reduce initial deposit size. |
| 40 – 54 | Low Trust | Significant regulatory, operational, or transparency deficiencies. Material risk to trader capital. Not recommended for traders without a high-risk tolerance and full awareness of disclosed concerns. |
| 25 – 39 | Very Low Trust | Severe deficiencies in multiple pillars. High probability of adverse trader experience. Strongly not recommended. |
| Below 25 | Do Not Use | Critical failures in regulatory standing, fund protection, or operational conduct. Immediate risk of financial loss beyond trading results. Avoid without exception. |
How Trust Scores Are Maintained Over Time
A Trust Score published today reflects the entity’s trustworthiness today. Trustworthiness changes. Our maintenance commitments ensure that published scores reflect current reality rather than historical assessment.
Scheduled Recalculation
Every Trust Score is subject to full recalculation at a maximum interval of 90 days. Full recalculation involves repeating the complete evaluation process — regulatory verification, withdrawal testing, complaint analysis, and all other sub-components — from the beginning, not simply updating the previous result based on surface-level changes.
Trigger-Based Recalculation
Certain events trigger an immediate recalculation outside the scheduled cycle. These triggers include a new regulatory warning or enforcement action against the entity in any jurisdiction, a verified surge in withdrawal complaints on independent platforms or regulatory databases, a confirmed change in the entity’s ownership structure or legal entity, a material change to the entity’s terms and conditions affecting trader rights, and a credible whistleblower report from a current or former employee of the entity that is corroborated by independently verifiable evidence.
Trigger-based recalculations begin within 72 hours of the triggering event being identified. The entity’s Trust Score is marked as under review during the recalculation period. The outcome of the recalculation and the reason for it are published transparently.
Score Change Publication
Every change to a published Trust Score — upward or downward — is accompanied by a dated change log entry specifying what changed, what new information or evidence drove the change, and how the recalculation affected each pillar score. We do not change Trust Scores silently. Every score change is visible and explained.
Trust Score Differences Across Entity Types
The Trust Score framework is applied consistently across brokers, prop firms, and other trading platforms, but certain sub-components are applied differently based on the nature of each entity type. These differences reflect genuine structural differences between entity categories, not preferential treatment.
Forex and Options Brokers
For regulated brokers, the regulatory assessment framework is applied in full, including mandatory compensation scheme participation checks, negative balance protection verification, and trade execution integrity assessment. The payout integrity assessment focuses on withdrawal compliance from trading accounts funded with real deposited capital.
Proprietary Trading Firms
For prop firms, the regulatory framework assessment is modified to reflect the reality that most prop firms are not required to hold financial services licenses. The Tier 1 through Tier 5 regulatory classification is applied where a license exists, but prop firms operating without a financial services license are not automatically capped — instead, they receive a score reflecting the legal enforceability of their contractual obligations and the protections available to traders through consumer law in their operating jurisdiction. The payout integrity assessment is weighted more heavily for prop firms than for brokers, because the funded account payout obligation is the central commercial promise of the prop firm model and the dimension most frequently abused.
Signal Services and Indicator Vendors
For signal services and automated trading tool vendors, the financial safety pillar is modified to reflect the fact that these entities typically do not hold trader capital directly. The assessment focuses on whether subscription fees are refundable under stated conditions, whether the entity’s performance claims are honest and verifiable, and whether the entity’s terms protect the trader’s right to cancel without penalty. Pillar Three is expanded to include assessment of whether the service’s operational conduct — signal delivery, performance reporting, and customer communication — is consistent with its marketing representations.
What We Will Never Do to a Trust Score
These commitments are unconditional:
- We will never increase a Trust Score in exchange for a commercial arrangement with the entity being scored
- We will never decrease a Trust Score to disadvantage an entity that has declined a commercial relationship with us
- We will never publish a Trust Score based on incomplete evaluation — every pillar must be fully assessed before a score is published
- We will never suppress an automatic adjustment trigger because its application would embarrass a commercial partner
- We will never allow an entity’s marketing team, legal representatives, or commercial contacts to review or respond to a Trust Score before it is published
- We will never change a Trust Score without publishing a full explanation of the reason for the change
A Final Word on What Trust Scores Cannot Tell You
The Trust Score is the most rigorous, independently verified safety assessment available for the entities listed on BinaryDiaries.com. It is not omniscient, and we will not pretend otherwise.
We cannot detect fraud that has been successfully concealed from all available evidence sources. We cannot predict the future behavior of an entity that has behaved acceptably during our evaluation period. We cannot guarantee that an entity with a high Trust Score will never change its conduct in ways that harm traders.
What we can guarantee is that every Trust Score published on BinaryDiaries.com represents our complete, honest, independently conducted assessment of the evidence available at the time of evaluation. That every score is calculated using the methodology described on this page. That no commercial consideration has influenced any component of any score. And that when our assessment proves insufficient — when a highly scored entity behaves in ways that harm traders — we will recalculate immediately, publish a correction, and explain exactly what our methodology did not catch and why.
The Trust Score is the best tool we know how to build. We commit to making it better every time it falls short.
For questions about our Trust Score methodology, to submit evidence relevant to a specific entity’s score, or to report a change in circumstances affecting a scored entity, contact our research team at research@BinaryDiaries.com
BinaryDiaries.com — Independent. Trader-First. No Exceptions.