Below is a detailed analysis of Buxberg (official website: https://buxberg.com) 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 incorporates available information, critically evaluates the data, and highlights potential risks for users.

1. Online Complaint Information ¶

Online complaints about Buxberg reveal significant concerns about its legitimacy and operations. Key points include:

Negative User Feedback: Multiple sources report user dissatisfaction, including issues with account registration, withdrawal difficulties, and loss of funds. For example, one user reported losing $11,000 to Buxberg, describing it as a scam and expressing regret for trusting the platform.
Fraud Allegations: Reviews on platforms like Trustpilot and other review sites highlight complaints about deceptive practices, such as non-delivery of promised returns and inability to withdraw funds. Some users claim Buxberg uses manipulative tactics to extract more deposits without allowing withdrawals.
Regulatory Warnings: The French Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) added Buxberg to its list of fraudulent financial companies in July 2022 for operating without authorization. The AMF, along with Belgium’s FSMA, has blacklisted Buxberg for unauthorized forex and crypto-derivative trading.
Positive Reviews Questioned: While some positive reviews exist (e.g., on Trustpilot), they are suspected to be fake due to their similarity and lack of verifiable evidence of platform solvency. This suggests potential review manipulation to boost credibility. Assessment: The prevalence of negative complaints, coupled with regulatory warnings, indicates a high likelihood of fraudulent activity. The presence of potentially fake positive reviews further undermines trust.

2. Risk Level Assessment ¶

Based on the available data, Buxberg presents a high-risk profile for investors. Key risk factors include:

Lack of Regulation: Buxberg is not regulated by any reputable financial authority, such as the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) or European regulators. Its registration in St. Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG) offers no investor protection, as SVG’s financial authority does not regulate forex brokers.
Offshore Status: Operating from SVG, a known haven for scam brokers, increases the risk of anonymity and lack of accountability.
High Leverage: Buxberg offers leverage up to 1:400, which is unregulated and risky, especially for inexperienced traders. High leverage can lead to significant losses, and its offering without regulatory oversight is a red flag.
Opaque Fee Structure: Buxberg reserves the right to change fees and commissions without notifying clients, a tactic often used by scam brokers to impose unexpected costs after deposits.
User Losses: Reports of users losing substantial sums (e.g., $11,000) without recourse suggest a high financial risk. Risk Level: High. The combination of unregulated operations, offshore registration, and consistent user complaints indicates a significant risk of financial loss.

3. Website Security Tools ¶

Buxberg claims to use 256-bit SSL encryption, which is an industry standard for securing data transmission. However, the following points raise concerns:

Limited Transparency: While SSL encryption is mentioned, there is no detailed information about other security measures, such as two-factor authentication (2FA), segregated client accounts, or compliance with anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) policies. Some sources note adherence to AML/KYC, but this is not independently verified.
Website Accessibility: As of July 2022, the main website (buxberg.com) was reported as deactivated, though related domains (e.g., fr.buxberg.com) were analyzed. This suggests potential instability or intentional obfuscation.
Suspicious Registration Process: Buxberg requires a referral code for registration, which is unusual for legitimate brokers and often used by scammers to control access and target victims selectively. Assessment: While SSL encryption is a positive feature, the lack of transparency about additional security protocols, combined with a suspicious registration process and reports of website deactivation, undermines confidence in Buxberg’s security.

4. WHOIS Lookup ¶

A WHOIS lookup provides insight into the domain’s ownership and registration details:

Domain Creation: The domain buxberg.com was created on September 14, 2020.
Anonymized Ownership: The registrant has used anonymization services to hide personal and company details, making it impossible to verify the true owner. This is a common tactic among fraudulent platforms to avoid accountability.
Related Domains: Other domains (e.g., bu Harrisonberg.org, buxberg.live) are linked to Buxberg, with some claiming the .com domain was hijacked. However, similarities in content, phone numbers, and addresses across these domains suggest they are part of the same operation. Assessment: The anonymized WHOIS data and the presence of multiple related domains with conflicting claims (e.g., hijacking allegations) are significant red flags, indicating potential deception and lack of transparency.

5. IP and Hosting Analysis ¶

Limited specific information is available about Buxberg’s IP and hosting setup, but the following observations can be made:

Hosting Location: The website is likely hosted in a jurisdiction that aligns with its claimed operations (SVG or Hong Kong), but no concrete IP or hosting provider details are provided in the sources. The lack of transparency about hosting is concerning, as legitimate brokers typically use reputable, verifiable hosting services.
Website Deactivation: The deactivation of buxberg.com by July 2022 suggests potential issues with hosting stability or intentional takedown due to regulatory action.
Potential Red Flag: Scam brokers often use low-cost or obscure hosting providers to minimize costs and evade detection. Without specific IP data, this cannot be confirmed, but the website’s inaccessibility aligns with such practices. Assessment: The lack of verifiable hosting information and the website’s deactivation raise concerns about operational legitimacy and stability.

Buxberg’s social media presence is not well-documented, but available information suggests:

Limited Engagement: There is no mention of active, verified social media accounts on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram. Some sources note user dissatisfaction expressed on social media, but Buxberg itself does not appear to maintain a robust presence.
Risk of Impersonation: The absence of official social media accounts increases the risk of impersonation or fake accounts created by scammers to lure victims. This aligns with the referral code tactic, which limits public exposure.
Regulatory Risks: Social media can amplify risks like business email compromise (BEC) attacks, where scammers impersonate trusted entities. Buxberg’s lack of transparency makes it vulnerable to such tactics. Assessment: The lack of a verifiable social media presence is a red flag, as legitimate brokers typically maintain active, transparent accounts to engage with clients and build trust.

7. Red Flags and Potential Risk Indicators ¶

Several red flags and risk indicators are evident:

Unregulated Status: Buxberg’s lack of regulation by reputable authorities (e.g., AMF, FCA, SEC) and its SVG registration are major concerns.
Referral Code Requirement: Requiring a referral code for registration is a tactic used by scammers to target specific victims and avoid scrutiny.
Misleading Location Claims: Buxberg claims to be based in Hong Kong but is registered in SVG, a discrepancy that suggests deception.
Fake Positive Reviews: Suspected fake reviews on platforms like Trustpilot undermine credibility.
High Leverage: Offering 1:400 leverage without regulatory oversight is risky and atypical for legitimate brokers.
Anonymized Ownership: Hidden WHOIS data indicates a lack of accountability.
Withdrawal Issues: Consistent complaints about inability to withdraw funds point to potential exit scams.
Regulatory Blacklisting: Inclusion on AMF and FSMA blacklists confirms unauthorized operations. Assessment: The numerous red flags strongly suggest that Buxberg is a fraudulent platform designed to deceive investors.

8. Website Content Analysis ¶

Analysis of Buxberg’s website content (based on archived data and reviews) reveals:

Professional Appearance: The website is described as hand-crafted, intuitive, and user-friendly, which can create a false sense of legitimacy.
Vague Claims: Promises of high returns (e.g., over 10%) and “optimum results” are common but lack substantiation. Such claims are typical of scam brokers.
Risk Warnings: The website includes a risk warning in the footer, which is standard but does not mitigate other deceptive practices.
Limited Language Support: The site is primarily in English, with no support for other languages, which may limit its appeal but also suggests a smaller-scale operation.
Deceptive Messaging: Claims of being investor-focused and providing “robust and efficient” trading conditions are contradicted by user experiences and regulatory warnings. Assessment: The website’s professional design and vague promises are designed to attract investors, but the lack of verifiable details and regulatory compliance undermines its credibility.

9. Regulatory Status ¶

Buxberg’s regulatory status is a critical concern:

No Valid Regulation: Buxberg is not regulated by any reputable financial authority. Its claimed license from SVG is meaningless, as SVG does not regulate forex brokers.
Blacklisted by Regulators: The AMF, ACPR, Banque de France, and FSMA have blacklisted Buxberg for unauthorized operations in France and Belgium.
Misleading Claims: Buxberg’s claim of being based in Hong Kong is not supported by regulatory registration with the HKMA, which would require compliance with strict leverage limits (e.g., 1:30 for forex).
AMF Warning: The AMF explicitly warns that Buxberg offers forex and crypto-derivative investments without authorization, posing a high risk to investors. Assessment: Buxberg’s lack of regulation and blacklisting by multiple authorities confirm its status as an unauthorized and high-risk platform.

10. User Precautions ¶

To protect themselves, users should take the following precautions:

Avoid Investment: Given the high risk and regulatory warnings, users should not invest with Buxberg or provide personal/financial information.
Verify Regulation: Always check a broker’s regulatory status with reputable authorities (e.g., FCA, SEC, ASIC) before investing. Use official regulator websites to confirm licenses.
Research Reviews: Cross-reference user reviews on multiple platforms (e.g., Trustpilot, Forex Peace Army) and be wary of overly positive reviews that lack detail.
Test Withdrawals: If already invested, attempt to withdraw funds immediately. Be cautious if additional fees or taxes are demanded, as this is a common scam tactic.
Pursue Chargebacks: If funds were deposited via credit/debit card, contact the card issuer to request a chargeback within 540 days.
Report to Authorities: Report suspected fraud to regulators like the AMF or local financial authorities and seek legal assistance from firms specializing in financial scams.
Use Demo Accounts: Trade with regulated brokers offering demo accounts to test platforms without risking real money. Assessment: Users must exercise extreme caution and prioritize regulated brokers to avoid financial loss.

11. Potential Brand Confusion ¶

Buxberg’s operations raise concerns about potential brand confusion:

Similar Domains: Related domains (e.g., buxberg.org, buxberg.live) claim the .com domain was hijacked, but their identical content suggests they are part of the same fraudulent network.
Misleading Hong Kong Claim: By claiming a Hong Kong base while operating from SVG, Buxberg may confuse users who associate Hong Kong with reputable financial regulation.
Generic Branding: The name “Buxberg” is not linked to any established financial brand, but its professional website design could be mistaken for a legitimate broker by inexperienced investors.
Comparison to Legitimate Brokers: Reviews compare Buxberg to reputable platforms like Binance, highlighting its inferior offerings and lack of transparency, which could confuse users seeking trusted brokers. Assessment: The use of multiple domains and misleading location claims creates deliberate confusion, likely to exploit unsuspecting investors.

12. Conclusion ¶

Buxberg (https://buxberg.com) exhibits numerous characteristics of a fraudulent broker, including:

A lack of regulation and blacklisting by reputable authorities (AMF, FSMA).
Consistent user complaints about fund losses and withdrawal issues.
Red flags such as anonymized WHOIS data, referral code requirements, and high, unregulated leverage.
A professional but deceptive website design with vague promises and limited transparency.
Potential brand confusion through related domains and misleading location claims. Recommendation: Avoid Buxberg entirely. Investors should prioritize regulated brokers with verifiable licenses, transparent operations, and positive, authentic user reviews. If already engaged with Buxberg, attempt to withdraw funds immediately and pursue chargebacks or legal recourse if necessary. Sources:
The Forex Review
Recommended-Brokers.com
ScamWatcher
CryptoParrot
Trustpilot
TheClaimers
FinCapital-Reviews
Colman Avocats
ADC France

Note: This analysis is based on available information (partial) information and should be used as a guide. Always conduct independent research and consult with financial advisors before making investment decisions. The date of this analysis is April 24, 2025.

AI risk analysis - Buxberg (2025-04-29 17:35:36)