Trust Score | BinaryDiaries.com
Last Updated: May 2026 | Methodology Review: Quarterly
Written by the Binary Diaries Research & Editorial Team Fact-Checked by the Binary Diaries Compliance Desk
Why We Built the Trust Score
When BinaryDiaries.com was founded, we made one non-negotiable commitment: every trader who uses this platform to make a financial decision will have access to the most honest, rigorous, and independently verified safety assessment in the industry.
That commitment produced the Binary Diaries Trust Score.
The retail trading landscape — across forex brokers, binary and digital options platforms, proprietary trading firms, and automated trading tool vendors — is populated by thousands of entities competing for trader capital. Some of them are excellently run, robustly regulated, and genuinely committed to treating traders fairly. Others are poorly capitalized, regulated in jurisdictions that provide traders with no meaningful protection, and structured in ways that make it extremely difficult for traders to withdraw their money when they need it.
The difference between these two categories is not always visible on the surface. A broker with a sophisticated website, a competitive spread, and a smooth onboarding experience can be operating in a jurisdiction where a trader has no recourse if the firm misappropriates their funds. A prop firm with a polished dashboard and an aggressive social media presence can maintain terms and conditions designed to deny payouts to traders who have met every stated condition. A signals vendor with thousands of followers can be presenting back-tested results as live performance history.
The Trust Score exists to make the invisible visible. It is a numerical rating, expressed on a scale of 0 to 100, that answers the one question every trader should ask before depositing a single dollar with any trading entity: is this entity genuinely safe to trust with my money?
Not: does this platform look professional? Not: does this broker have competitive spreads? Not: does this prop firm have attractive payout ratios? Specifically, and only: based on every independently verifiable piece of evidence we can gather, is this entity likely to treat you fairly, protect your capital, apply its rules honestly, and allow you to withdraw what you are entitled to?
What the Trust Score Is — and What It Is Not
Understanding what the Trust Score measures is as important as understanding how it is calculated. Clarity about its scope prevents traders from using it as a substitute for judgments it is not designed to make.
The Trust Score measures safety, not suitability. A broker with a Trust Score of 88 may be a genuinely safe firm but an entirely inappropriate choice for a specific trader based on minimum deposit requirements, available instruments, regulatory jurisdiction, or account type. The Trust Score tells you whether you are likely to be treated honestly. It does not tell you whether this entity is the right fit for your trading style or capital level.
The Trust Score measures trustworthiness at a point in time. Every Trust Score reflects the state of an entity at the time of our most recent evaluation. It is not a permanent designation. An entity that scores 82 today can score 41 in three months if its regulatory status is revoked, its payout behavior deteriorates, or a pattern of verified trader complaints emerges. Trust Scores are recalculated at defined intervals and in response to specific trigger events. The recalculation date is always published alongside the score.
The Trust Score is not a performance guarantee. A high Trust Score does not mean you will profit from trading with this entity. It means the entity is unlikely to steal your money, arbitrarily deny your withdrawal, apply rules selectively at your expense, or disappear with your funds. Whether you make or lose money from trading is a function of your own decisions, not the Trust Score.
The Trust Score is not influenced by commercial relationships. BinaryDiaries.com generates revenue through referral and advertising arrangements with some of the entities we review. These relationships have zero influence on Trust Score calculations. The structural mechanisms by which we enforce this — score lockdown before commercial discussions, evaluator separation from commercial teams, prohibition on commercial score alterations — are described in detail in our Why Trust Us and How We Test pages. A firm that pays us the highest possible referral fee receives the same Trust Score it would receive if it paid us nothing.
How the Trust Score Is Calculated
The Trust Score is built on five independently weighted pillars. Each pillar addresses a distinct dimension of trustworthiness. Each is composed of multiple sub-components, each of which is scored independently based on documented evidence gathered during our evaluation process. No sub-component score is awarded without specific, verifiable evidence to support it.
The five pillars and their weightings are:
Pillar 1 — Regulatory Standing and Legal Framework: 35%
Pillar 2 — Financial Safety and Fund Protection: 25%
Pillar 3 — Operational Conduct and Payout Integrity: 20%
Pillar 4 — Transparency and Disclosure: 12%
Pillar 5 — Complaint History and 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. Certain findings trigger automatic score adjustments that override the weighted calculation where necessary to reflect the severity of specific risk factors. These are described in the Automatic Adjustment Triggers section below.
The Trust Score Variables
Years in Operation
The number of years an entity has operated continuously and under consistent ownership is a meaningful indicator of stability. A firm that has operated for twelve years through multiple market cycles, regulatory changes, and periods of market stress has demonstrated a degree of institutional resilience that a recently launched firm has not yet had the opportunity to demonstrate.
We assess years of continuous operation under the current legal entity and ownership structure. A firm that changed its legal entity or ownership three years ago is assessed as three years old for the purposes of this variable, regardless of how long its brand name has existed. Legal entity changes are frequently used to shed the regulatory history of a previous structure, and we treat them accordingly.
Corporate Structure
The corporate structure of a trading entity is a significant indicator of the accountability and oversight to which it is subject. We assess:
Whether the entity is publicly listed on a recognized stock exchange. Publicly traded firms are subject to financial disclosure requirements, shareholder accountability, and external auditing standards that private firms are not. A publicly listed broker or financial services firm is, in general, subject to more institutional scrutiny than a privately held equivalent.
Whether the entity is a bank or is operated by a banking group. Banks are subject to capital adequacy requirements, deposit insurance schemes, and regulatory oversight that is, in most jurisdictions, more stringent than that applied to standalone brokers or trading firms.
Whether the entity is privately held with identifiable, named principals who carry personal professional accountability for its conduct. Anonymous or obscured private ownership is treated as a negative structural indicator throughout our Trust Score methodology.
Whether the entity has institutional investors, third-party auditors, or independent board oversight that provides accountability beyond the firm’s own management.
Number and Quality of Regulatory Licenses
The total number of regulatory licenses held by an entity is a less important variable than the quality — meaning the tier — of those licenses. An entity holding seven licenses from Tier 4 and Tier 5 jurisdictions is not seven times safer than one holding a single Tier 1 license. It may in fact be less safe, because the accumulation of low-quality licenses is sometimes used to create an impression of regulatory credibility that does not correspond to any meaningful trader protection.
We assess the number of licenses held, the tier classification of each jurisdiction, and whether the licenses are current and in good standing at the time of evaluation.
Expert Research Score
Our senior research team applies a qualitative expert assessment that captures dimensions of trustworthiness that data points alone cannot fully reflect — the overall coherence of the entity’s conduct, the consistency between its public communications and its observed behavior, the quality of its complaints handling culture, and the judgment of experienced evaluators who have directly tested the entity over a sustained evaluation period.
This expert score is applied after all quantitative data is collected and locked, to prevent anchoring bias. It is weighted within the overall Trust Score calculation at a level that prevents it from overriding strong quantitative findings in either direction, while ensuring that evaluator judgment based on direct experience is reflected in the final score.
Recognized Regulatory Jurisdictions
The regulatory jurisdiction in which an entity holds its primary license is the single most important determinant of the legal protections available to traders in the event of a dispute, insolvency, or misconduct allegation. Not all regulatory jurisdictions are equivalent. The difference between a Tier 1 jurisdiction and a Tier 5 jurisdiction is not a matter of degree — it is the difference between meaningful trader protection and virtually no trader protection at all.
BinaryDiaries.com maintains a five-tier regulatory classification system based on four primary criteria: the stringency of initial licensing requirements and ongoing supervisory standards, the availability of mandatory client fund segregation and investor compensation schemes, the track record of the regulatory body in taking enforcement action against misconduct, and the practical accessibility of dispute resolution mechanisms to retail traders.
We review and update our tier classifications quarterly. A jurisdiction’s tier can change in response to legislative changes, enforcement record updates, or significant changes to the regulatory body’s structure or resourcing.
Tier 1 — Highly Trusted Jurisdictions
Tier 1 is reserved exclusively for regulatory jurisdictions that impose the most demanding licensing requirements, maintain active and well-resourced supervision of authorized firms, require mandatory client fund segregation, mandate negative balance protection for retail traders, and operate or participate in investor compensation schemes that provide traders with meaningful financial protection in the event of firm insolvency.
An entity regulated solely by one or more Tier 1 authorities receives the maximum available score in the regulatory pillar sub-components related to tier classification. This does not guarantee a high overall Trust Score — regulatory standing is one pillar among five — but it establishes the strongest possible foundation for overall trustworthiness.
The Tier 1 regulatory jurisdictions recognized by BinaryDiaries.com are:
Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) — Australia
Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) — Canada
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and National Futures Association (NFA) — United States of America
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) — United Kingdom
Japanese Financial Services Authority (JFSA) — Japan
Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) — Singapore
Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) — Switzerland
Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) — Hong Kong
Financial Markets Authority (FMA) — New Zealand
Any entity licensed within the European Union under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) passporting framework, through a license granted by any of the following member state regulatory authorities:
Autorité des services et marchés financiers (FSMA) — Belgium
Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) — France
Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin) — Germany
Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) — Ireland
Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (CONSOB) — Italy
Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) — Luxembourg
Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) — Malta
Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) — Netherlands
National Securities Market Commission (CNMV) — Spain
Financial Supervisory Authority (Finansinspektionen) — Sweden
Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) — Cyprus
Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) — Poland
Czech National Bank (CNB) — Czech Republic
Danish Financial Supervisory Authority (DFSA) — Denmark
Financial Supervisory Authority (FIN-FSA) — Finland
Hungarian National Bank (MNB) — Hungary
National Bank of Slovakia (NBS) — Slovakia
Bank of Lithuania (LB) — Lithuania
Financial and Capital Market Commission (FKTK) — Latvia
Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) — Bulgaria
Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF) — Romania
Securities Market Agency (ATVP) — Slovenia
Croatian Financial Services Supervisory Agency (HANFA) — Croatia
Financial Market Authority (FMA) — Austria
Financial Market Authority (FMA) — Liechtenstein
Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway (NFSA) — Norway
Hellenic Capital Market Commission (HCMC) — Greece
Finantsinspektsioon (FSA) — Estonia
Central Bank of Iceland (CBI) — Iceland
Financial Supervisory Authority (Finanzmarktaufsicht) — Liechtenstein
Portuguese Securities Market Commission (CMVM) — Portugal
Tier 2 — Trusted Jurisdictions
Tier 2 jurisdictions maintain meaningful regulatory frameworks that provide traders with a degree of protection above what is available in lower tiers, but impose fewer comprehensive requirements than Tier 1 authorities in areas such as investor compensation, capital adequacy, or supervisory intensity.
An entity regulated solely by Tier 2 authorities receives a solid but materially lower score in the regulatory pillar than a Tier 1-regulated entity. Many Tier 2 jurisdictions are appropriate for traders resident in those countries but may not provide equivalent protection to traders in other jurisdictions whose regulatory rights are less clearly defined.
The Tier 2 regulatory jurisdictions recognized by BinaryDiaries.com are:
Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA) — United Arab Emirates
Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) — Abu Dhabi Global Market, UAE
Securities and Commodities Authority (SCA) — United Arab Emirates
Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) — South Africa;
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) — India
Securities Commission of Malaysia (SC) — Malaysia
Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority (SAMA) — Saudi Arabia
Capital Markets Board (CMB) — Turkey
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) — Thailand
Financial Services Authority of Indonesia (OJK) — Indonesia
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) — Philippines
Israel Securities Authority (ISA) — Israel
Jordan Securities Commission (JSC) — Jordan
Capital Markets Authority (CMA) — Kenya
Securities and Exchange Commission of Brazil (CVM) — Brazil
National Banking and Securities Commission (CNBV) — Mexico
China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission (CBIRC) — China
Tier 3 — Moderate Risk Jurisdictions
Tier 3 jurisdictions maintain a regulatory framework that is formally structured but imposes significantly fewer demanding requirements than Tier 1 or Tier 2 authorities. Supervision may be less active, enforcement less consistent, and the practical protections available to retail traders in the event of a dispute less accessible.
An entity regulated solely by Tier 3 authorities receives a significantly penalized score in the regulatory pillar. We do not recommend that traders treat a Tier 3 license as equivalent to meaningful regulatory protection without independently verifying whether the specific authority has a track record of active enforcement.
Tier 3 jurisdictions recognized by BinaryDiaries.com include:
Central Bank of Argentina (BCRA) — Argentina
Central Bank of Russia (CBR) — Russia;
Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA) — Bermuda
Financial Market Commission (CMF) — Chile
Financial Superintendence of Colombia (SFC) — Colombia
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) — Pakistan
Central Bank of Uruguay (BCU) — Uruguay
Bank of Botswana (BoB) — Botswana
Financial Services Commission Jamaica (FSC) — Jamaica
Central Bank of Paraguay (BCP) — Paraguay
Central Bank of Ecuador (BCE) — Ecuador
Tier 4 — High Risk Jurisdictions
Tier 4 jurisdictions impose the minimum requirements that allow BinaryDiaries.com to acknowledge a formal regulatory structure, but those requirements are so limited in practice that a licence from a Tier 4 authority provides traders with negligible meaningful protection. These jurisdictions are frequently chosen by entities that seek the appearance of regulatory legitimacy without subjecting themselves to substantive oversight.
An entity regulated solely by Tier 4 authorities cannot achieve a Trust Score above 40 out of 100 regardless of its performance in other pillars. Traders considering entities regulated only in Tier 4 jurisdictions should approach with significant caution and conduct thorough independent due diligence before depositing funds.
Tier 4 jurisdictions recognized by BinaryDiaries.com include:
Seychelles Financial Services Authority (FSA) — Seychelles
Vanuatu Financial Services Commission (VFSC) — Vanuatu
Financial Services Commission (FSC) — Mauritius
Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) — Cayman Islands
BVI Financial Services Commission (FSC) — British Virgin Islands
Financial Services Commission (FSC) — Belize
Securities Commission of the Bahamas (SCB) — Bahamas
Securities Commission of Papua New Guinea — Papua New Guinea
National Securities and Stock Market Commission (NSSMC) — Ukraine
Central Bank of Armenia (CBA) — Armenia
Securities and Exchange Regulator of Cambodia (SERC) — Cambodia
Tier 5 — Do Not Trust Jurisdictions
Tier 5 designates regulatory registrations that BinaryDiaries.com considers to provide no meaningful trader protection whatsoever. A Tier 5 registration is, in our assessment, indistinguishable from no regulation at all in terms of the practical rights it confers on traders. Tier 5 registrations do not contribute positively to a Trust Score under any circumstances.
An entity whose only regulatory credential is a Tier 5 registration receives a Trust Score that reflects the complete absence of meaningful regulatory oversight. This score cannot exceed 25 out of 100 regardless of any other characteristic.
If an entity prominently promotes a Tier 5 registration as evidence of regulatory credibility, we treat this as a significant negative indicator. It suggests either that the entity’s principals are aware that the registration provides no real protection and are deliberately misrepresenting its significance, or that they lack the expertise to understand the difference — neither of which is reassuring.
Tier 5 jurisdictions include:
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Financial Services Authority (FSA)
Marshall Islands Global Financial Services Authority (GLOFSA)
Comoros Mwali International Services Authority
Anguilla Financial Services Commission (AFSC)
Commonwealth of Dominica Financial Service Unit (FSU)
Nevis Financial Services Regulatory Commission
Grenada Authority for the Regulation of Financial Institutions (GARFIN)
Saint Lucia Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA)
Turks and Caicos Islands Financial Services Commission (TCIFSC)
Aruba Financial Services Commission (AFSC)
Panama Superintendency of the Securities Market (SMV)
Trust Score Ratings — What Each Band Means
90 – 100 | Highly Trusted
Entities in this band represent the strongest available combination of regulatory standing, financial safety, operational conduct, transparency, and complaint history. They are regulated by one or more Tier 1 authorities, hold client funds in genuinely segregated accounts, have a verified record of processing withdrawals within stated timeframes, and have demonstrated consistently honest conduct across an extended evaluation period. We would open and fund our own accounts with a Highly Trusted entity without reservation and have done so as part of our evaluation process.
It is important to state clearly that a Highly Trusted rating is not a guarantee of solvency or permanence. Financial markets produce unexpected events. An entity that earns a Highly Trusted rating today can face unforeseen circumstances that affect its stability tomorrow. The rating reflects our assessment of current evidence, not an unconditional endorsement of future performance.
80 – 89 | Trusted
Trusted entities are reliable and operate with integrity. The difference between a Trusted and a Highly Trusted rating typically reflects one or more of the following: slightly narrower multi-jurisdictional regulatory coverage, a minor historical regulatory matter that has been fully resolved, a marginally less comprehensive fund protection structure, or a smaller body of verified long-term track record. These are solid entities that most traders would be well-served by, approached with standard due diligence.
70 – 79 | Conditionally Trusted
Conditionally Trusted entities have meaningful positive attributes but also carry specific, identified limitations that traders should understand before opening an account. These limitations are disclosed fully in the entity’s detailed review and the specific reason a score falls within this band — rather than the Trusted band — is always explained. Traders considering a Conditionally Trusted entity should read the full review, verify the entity’s regulatory status in their own country of residence, and consider beginning with a reduced initial deposit.
55 – 69 | Caution Required
Entities in this band present material concerns that go beyond minor limitations. The specific concerns — whether related to regulatory quality, fund protection gaps, operational conduct issues, or complaint patterns — are identified and explained in the full review. We do not recommend these entities for traders who are not fully informed of and willing to accept the specific risks involved. For most retail traders, a Caution Required rating is a signal to look for an alternative that scores higher before depositing funds.
40 – 54 | High Risk
High Risk entities have significant deficiencies in one or more pillars that create a material probability of an adverse trader experience. This band frequently includes entities regulated only in Tier 3 or Tier 4 jurisdictions, entities with documented withdrawal problems, or entities whose terms and conditions contain clauses that materially disadvantage traders. We do not recommend opening accounts with High-Risk entities unless a trader has conducted exhaustive independent due diligence and has specific reasons to accept the identified risks that are not available through any higher-scored alternative.
25 – 39 | Very High Risk
Very High-Risk entities present severe deficiencies across multiple pillars. The probability of an adverse trader outcome — including difficulty withdrawing funds, selective rule application, or platform-level misconduct — is materially elevated. We strongly advise against opening accounts with any entity in this band.
Below 25 | Do Not Trust
Do Not Trust is our most severe rating and is reserved for entities where our evaluation has identified critical failures that represent an immediate and serious risk to trader capital. This includes entities with no credible regulatory oversight, entities with documented histories of withdrawal fraud or account closure misconduct, and entities that have been the subject of regulatory warnings or enforcement actions in major jurisdictions.
We will never recommend that a trader open an account of any kind with a Do Not Trust entity. Entities in this band are reviewed for placement on our Blacklist. Once listed on our Blacklist, an entity’s entry remains permanent unless it undergoes comprehensive remediation that satisfies a full re-evaluation conducted under the same standards as an initial evaluation. We do not remove Blacklist entries at a firm’s request, under commercial pressure, or without published justification.
Automatic Score Adjustment Triggers
Certain findings are so materially significant to trader safety that they override the standard weighted calculation and impose a ceiling on the Trust Score regardless of how the entity performs in other pillars. These triggers reflect the reality that a mathematical average can produce a misleadingly moderate score when one dimension of an entity’s conduct represents an acute and severe risk.
The following findings impose an automatic Trust Score ceiling:
An active regulatory warning, license suspension, or enforcement action from any Tier 1 or Tier 2 regulatory authority imposes an automatic ceiling of 35 out of 100.
Confirmed evidence of withdrawal denial without contractual basis, applied to verified trader accounts, imposes an automatic ceiling of 30 out of 100.
Confirmed evidence of fraudulent performance claims in marketing materials — including verified falsification of account statements, fabricated track records, or paid actor testimonials presented as genuine trader experiences — imposes an automatic ceiling of 20 out of 100.
Any confirmed evidence of client fund misappropriation, regardless of scale, results in automatic placement on our Blacklist and a Trust Score of 0.
Operation under a false or fabricated regulatory claim — asserting a license that does not exist or has been revoked — results in automatic placement on our Blacklist and a Trust Score of 0.
How Trust Scores Are Maintained
A Trust Score is a current assessment, not a permanent designation. The following maintenance commitments ensure that published scores reflect present reality.
Every Trust Score is subject to full recalculation at a maximum interval of 90 days. Full recalculation involves repeating the complete evaluation process, not simply updating the previous result based on surface-level changes.
The following events trigger an immediate recalculation outside the scheduled cycle: a new regulatory warning or enforcement action against the entity in any jurisdiction; a verified surge in withdrawal complaints on independent verified review platforms or regulatory databases; a confirmed change in the entity’s ownership structure or legal entity; any material change to the entity’s terms and conditions affecting trader rights or payout conditions; and any credible, corroborated internal disclosure from a current or former employee of the entity.
Every change to a published Trust Score — upward or downward — is accompanied by a dated change log entry specifying what changed, what evidence drove the change, and how each pillar score was affected. Trust Scores are never changed silently. Every revision is visible, dated, and explained.
Comparing Trust Scores Across Entity Types
The Trust Score framework applies consistently across forex brokers, prop firms, and other trading platforms, with entity-type-specific modifications to certain sub-components that reflect genuine structural differences.
For forex and options brokers, the full regulatory framework assessment applies, including mandatory compensation scheme verification, negative balance protection confirmation, and trade execution integrity assessment.
For proprietary trading firms, the regulatory assessment is modified to reflect the absence of mandatory licensing in most jurisdictions. Tier classification is applied where a license exists. Where no financial services license is held, the assessment focuses on the legal enforceability of the contractual relationship between the firm and its traders under the governing law of the firm’s operating jurisdiction. Payout integrity 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 systematically abused by firms operating in bad faith.
For signal services and automated trading tool vendors, the financial safety pillar is modified to reflect that these entities typically do not hold trader capital directly. The assessment focuses on subscription fee refund conditions, performance claim honesty, and operational conduct consistency.
What We Will Never Do to a Trust Score
These commitments are absolute and 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 an incomplete evaluation.
We will never suppress an automatic adjustment trigger because its application would embarrass a commercial partner.
We will never allow an entity’s representatives to review, comment on, or respond to a Trust Score before it is published.
We will never change a Trust Score without publishing a full, dated explanation of the reason for the change.
We will never remove a Trust Score from our platform at an entity’s request.
Risk Disclaimer
Trading forex, binary and digital options, contracts for difference, and other leveraged financial instruments carries a very high degree of risk and is not appropriate for all investors. The majority of retail traders who trade leveraged instruments lose money. Past performance of any broker, platform, prop firm, or trading tool is not indicative of future results. The Binary Diaries Trust Score is an independent safety assessment based on evidence available at the time of evaluation. It is not a guarantee of solvency, a promise of future conduct, or personalized financial advice. You should never deposit money you cannot afford to lose, and you should seek independent financial advice if you are uncertain whether trading is appropriate for your circumstances.
Submit Feedback on Our Methodology
The Trust Score methodology is a living framework. We review and update it quarterly based on changes in the regulatory landscape, evolving industry practices, and feedback from the trader community.
If you have evidence relevant to a specific entity’s Trust Score — including verified account statements, documented withdrawal records, or regulatory correspondence — we want to hear from you. Verified trader testimony is a formal input into our evaluation process.
If you believe our methodology contains a gap, applies an incorrect weighting, or fails to account for a relevant dimension of trustworthiness, submit your feedback to our research team. Every substantive methodological submission is reviewed by a senior analyst and responded to within five business days.
For Trust Score methodology enquiries, entity-specific evidence submissions, 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.