AI risk analysis - Buxberg (2025-04-29 17:35:34)
2025/04
2025/04
Below is a comprehensive analysis of Buxberg Ltd, based on the requested criteria, including online complaint information, risk level assessment, website security, WHOIS lookup, IP and hosting analysis, social media presence, red flags, regulatory status, user precautions, and potential brand confusion. The analysis draws on available information, critically evaluated to provide a clear picture of Buxberg’s legitimacy and risks.
1. Online Complaint Information ¶
- Complaints and User Reviews: Multiple sources report significant user dissatisfaction with Buxberg. Common complaints include:
- Difficulty Registering Accounts: Users report errors when attempting to create accounts, suggesting potential technical issues or intentional barriers to limit scrutiny.
- Withdrawal Issues: Some users claim they could not withdraw funds, with allegations of funds being lost or withheld by the broker. One user reported losing $11,000, describing Buxberg as a scam.
- Fake Positive Reviews: Positive reviews exist but are suspected to be fabricated due to their similarity and lack of verifiable evidence of the platform’s solvency.
- Misleading Representations: Investors were misled by Buxberg’s claim of being based in Hong Kong, only to discover its registration in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, a known haven for unregulated brokers.
- Trustpilot and Other Platforms: Trustpilot shows 42 reviews, with some praising Buxberg’s services, but these are overshadowed by allegations of fake reviews and negative experiences on other platforms like Scamadviser and TheClaimers.
- Conclusion: The prevalence of complaints about registration, withdrawals, and deceptive practices indicates a high likelihood of fraudulent activity.
2. Risk Level Assessment ¶
- High-Risk Indicators:
- Lack of Regulation: Buxberg is not regulated by any reputable financial authority, a critical risk factor.
- Offshore Registration: Registered in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, a jurisdiction with no forex broker regulation, increasing the risk of fraud.
- High Leverage: Offers leverage up to 1:400, which is risky for inexperienced traders and often used by scam brokers to attract victims.
- Opaque Fee Structure: Buxberg reserves the right to change fees without notice, a tactic associated with scams.
- Referral Code Requirement: Requiring a referral code for registration is a tactic used by scammers to control access and delay public exposure.
- Risk Level: High. The combination of no regulation, offshore registration, high leverage, and deceptive practices suggests significant risk to investors.
3. Website Security Tools ¶
- SSL Encryption: Buxberg claims to use 256-bit SSL encryption, which is industry-standard for securing data. However, this alone does not guarantee legitimacy, as many scam websites also use SSL.
- Website Accessibility: As of recent reports, the main website (https://buxberg.com/) is inaccessible in some regions, and archived versions show activity only since 2022, despite a domain creation date of 2020. This raises concerns about the platform’s operational status.
- Security Red Flags:
- The website lacks transparency about its security protocols beyond SSL claims.
- Reports of registration errors suggest potential issues with the platform’s infrastructure or intentional barriers.
- Conclusion: While SSL encryption is present, the inaccessibility of the website and lack of detailed security information are concerning.
4. WHOIS Lookup ¶
- Domain Information:
- Domain: buxberg.com
- Creation Date: September 14, 2020
- Last Updated: 2023
- Registrar: Not publicly disclosed in available data, but WHOIS data is anonymized, preventing verification of the domain owner.
- Analysis:
- Anonymized WHOIS data is a red flag, as legitimate brokers typically provide transparent ownership details.
- The domain was dormant until 2022, suggesting the platform may have been repurposed or launched later than claimed.
- Conclusion: The anonymized WHOIS data and delayed website activity indicate potential concealment of ownership, increasing suspicion.
5. IP and Hosting Analysis ¶
- Hosting Provider: Likely Cloudflare Inc., as indicated by references to related domains (e.g., avis-buxberg.fr). Cloudflare is a common choice for both legitimate and fraudulent websites due to its anonymity features.
- IP Location: Specific IP details are not provided in the sources, but the use of Cloudflare suggests the server location is obscured, a tactic used by scam brokers to hide their operations.
- Analysis:
- The use of a privacy-focused hosting provider like Cloudflare aligns with the anonymized WHOIS data, further obscuring Buxberg’s operational details.
- No evidence of dedicated hosting or infrastructure typical of reputable brokers.
- Conclusion: The obscured hosting setup is consistent with scam brokers aiming to avoid accountability.
6. Social Media Presence ¶
- Presence: Buxberg’s social media accounts were reportedly created in 2022, coinciding with the website’s active period. However, specific platforms (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) show limited engagement and recurring user dissatisfaction.
- Red Flags:
- Social media accounts lack substantial follower bases or verifiable activity, suggesting they may be superficial or abandoned.
- Complaints on social media echo those on review platforms, focusing on deception and financial losses.
- Conclusion: Buxberg’s social media presence is minimal and does not inspire confidence, with user feedback reinforcing scam allegations.
7. Red Flags and Potential Risk Indicators ¶
- Regulatory Issues: Buxberg is not regulated by any recognized financial authority, and its claim of being based in Hong Kong is misleading, as it lacks an HKMA license.
- Offshore Registration: St. Vincent and the Grenadines registration (number 26707BC2022) is a known red flag due to the lack of forex oversight.
- Anonymity: No verifiable legal address, management details, or license information is provided.
- Referral Code Tactic: Requiring referral codes limits public access and is a common scam strategy.
- High Leverage: 1:400 leverage is risky and often used to lure inexperienced traders.
- Opaque Terms: The ability to change fees without notice and lack of transparency about spreads and costs are concerning.
- AMF Blacklist: In July 2022, France’s AMF added Buxberg to its list of fraudulent platforms for operating without authorization.
- Conclusion: Multiple red flags, including lack of regulation, anonymity, and blacklisting, strongly suggest Buxberg is a scam.
8. Website Content Analysis ¶
- Claims and Promises:
- Buxberg promotes “over 2000 instruments,” “lightning-fast execution” (0.02 seconds), and “zero commissions.” These claims are attractive but lack verifiable evidence.
- The website emphasizes client safety with SSL encryption and segregated accounts, but these are unverified and common among scam brokers.
- Transparency:
- The website lacks critical details, such as a license number, full company address, or management team information.
- Trading conditions (e.g., spreads, deposit methods) are vaguely described, making it difficult to assess costs.
- Risk Warnings: A generic risk statement is present, but it is standard and does not compensate for the lack of transparency.
- Conclusion: The website’s content is designed to attract investors with bold claims but lacks substance and transparency, typical of scam brokers.
9. Regulatory Status ¶
- Claimed Location: Buxberg claims to be based in Hong Kong (1 Harbour View Street, Central, Hong Kong) but is registered in St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
- Regulatory Oversight:
- Hong Kong: No evidence of registration with the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), which is required for financial services.
- St. Vincent and the Grenadines: The SVGFSA does not regulate forex brokers, offering no investor protection.
- France: Blacklisted by the AMF for unauthorized forex and crypto derivative offerings.
- Conclusion: Buxberg operates without legitimate regulatory oversight, making it highly risky and likely fraudulent.
10. User Precautions ¶
To protect against potential risks when dealing with Buxberg or similar brokers, users should:
- Verify Regulation: Only trade with brokers regulated by reputable authorities (e.g., FCA, ASIC, CySEC).
- Research Thoroughly: Check WHOIS data, hosting details, and user reviews on platforms like Trustpilot and Scamadviser.
- Avoid High Leverage: Be cautious of brokers offering excessively high leverage, as it increases financial risk.
- Test Withdrawals: Deposit small amounts initially and attempt withdrawals to verify the broker’s reliability.
- Beware of Referral Codes: Avoid platforms requiring referral codes, as this limits transparency.
- Seek Chargeback Options: If funds are deposited via credit/debit cards, pursue chargebacks within 540 days (Visa/MasterCard).
- Report Scams: Contact authorities like the AMF or legal firms specializing in fraud recovery if victimized.
- Use Demo Accounts: Test platforms with demo accounts before investing real money.
11. Potential Brand Confusion ¶
- Related Domains:
- buxberg.org and buxberg.live: These domains claim to be separate from buxberg.com, with buxberg.org alleging that buxberg.com is a fraudulent copy. However, both share identical content, phone numbers, and addresses, suggesting they are part of the same scam network.
- avis-buxberg.fr: This site poses as a review platform but is likely affiliated with Buxberg, using similar hosting (Cloudflare) and promoting the broker positively.
- Logo Disputes: Buxberg.org claimed buxberg.com misused its logo, with a takedown request originating from Cambodia, further complicating the narrative.
- Analysis: The existence of multiple domains with overlapping content and conflicting claims indicates a deliberate attempt to confuse users and obscure the true operator. This is a common tactic in scam networks to deflect accountability.
- Conclusion: The brand confusion between buxberg.com, buxberg.org, and related sites is a significant red flag, likely designed to mislead investors.
12. Overall Conclusion ¶
Buxberg Ltd presents numerous indicators of a fraudulent operation:
- Regulatory Status: Unregulated, blacklisted by the AMF, and registered in a non-regulated jurisdiction (St. Vincent and the Grenadines).
- Complaints: Widespread reports of registration issues, withdrawal problems, and financial losses.
- Transparency: Lack of verifiable ownership, licensing, or operational details, with anonymized WHOIS and hosting data.
- Red Flags: Referral code requirements, high leverage, fake reviews, and brand confusion with related domains.
- Risk Level: High, with a strong likelihood of being a scam. Recommendation: Avoid investing with Buxberg Ltd. Investors should prioritize regulated brokers with transparent operations and verifiable credentials. If you have already deposited funds, pursue chargeback options immediately and consider legal recourse through firms like COLMAN Avocats.
Sources ¶
The analysis is based on critical evaluation of the provided web results, cross-referenced for accuracy. Key sources include:
Powered by FinanceWiki AI Some content is AI-generated and for reference only; it is not investment advice.
