Know Why the Platform Restricts Bots

The rules on automation

The relevant text is short, and quoting it is more useful than paraphrasing, because paraphrases in this subject tend to drift in both directions.

Everything below comes from the operator's public offer as we read it on 2 August 2026. Terms change without notice, so treat this as a pointer to the document rather than a substitute for it.

Terms-of-service limits

Among the circumstances in which a trading operation may be cancelled, the agreement lists that the operation "is performed with the help of unauthorized bot software". Separately it states that the company "prohibits the Client to resort to any type of fraudulent activity", giving as examples operations not instructed by the company and the use of vulnerabilities in the company's official websites. A third clause names abusive trading, "including but not limited to hedging transactions from different accounts, speculation on assets with troubled liquidity".

Two neighbouring clauses are worth reading alongside the automation wording, because they cover behaviour that automation makes easy without anyone intending it. The prohibition on operations not instructed by the company, and the naming of hedging transactions from different accounts as abusive trading, both describe patterns that a tool running across several accounts would produce as a matter of course. A trader who bought software and let it manage two logins may be inside those clauses without ever having considered them, which is a useful reminder that the terms describe activity rather than intent.

Prohibited tools

The wording that matters is "unauthorized". The agreement does not publish a list of approved or disapproved tools, and we found no clause in the documents we could open that addresses a public interface, scripts or browser overlay software by name. What that means practically is that the boundary is defined by the operator rather than by a published specification, and a trader using third-party automation is relying on an interpretation they do not control.

It is also worth understanding what "unauthorized" implies about process. A term written that way lets the operator judge case by case rather than maintain a public list, which is administratively sensible and leaves the trader without a bright line to stand behind. If you were ever in a discussion about a cancelled operation, the question would not be whether your tool appeared on a prohibited list; it would be whether the operator regarded it as authorized. That asymmetry is the practical content of the clause, and it is the reason the rest of this page recommends staying well clear of the boundary rather than approaching it carefully.

Why they exist

Clauses of this kind are common across trading platforms and the reasons are not mysterious. A fixed-payout product prices contracts on assumptions about how they will be traded, and automation at scale can concentrate activity in ways those assumptions did not anticipate. There are also ordinary integrity reasons: software driving many accounts, coordinated activity across accounts, and tools exploiting a pricing or interface fault are all things a platform will write terms against. Reading the clause as hostility toward retail traders misses what it is actually doing.

• The text names unauthorized bot software. Not automation in the abstract.
• No approved-tool list is published. The boundary is the operator's to draw.
• Related clauses cover coordinated and abusive activity. Multi-account arrangements are named explicitly.
• The document can change. Check the current version rather than a summary.

The agreement names unauthorized bot software as grounds for cancelling an operation, and publishes no list of what counts as authorized.

The suspension risk

What the agreement permits the company to do is broad, and it is worth stating plainly and without exaggeration.

Two things are true at once here: the powers reserved are wide, and nothing is published about how often they are used. Both belong in an honest description.

Flagged activity

The cancellation clause attaches to a trading operation rather than to an account, so the first-order consequence described in the text is that specific operations may be reversed. The agreement also allows the company to reset the results of trading operations in circumstances including re-registration of accounts, which indicates that result adjustment is a tool the operator uses rather than a theoretical one.

There is a second-order effect worth anticipating. Where an operator has grounds to review an account, the review itself takes time, and time is the cost people underestimate. Even an outcome entirely in your favour can mean a period during which the account is under examination. That is not a claim about this operator specifically, since no process timings are published anywhere we could find; it is a general property of disputes and a reason the cheapest position is the one where no dispute arises.

Frozen accounts

Beyond individual operations, the agreement states that the company "has the right to unilaterally, without explanation, terminate the Agreement with the Client", and that it may terminate without prior notice where one or more provisions have been violated. That is a broad reservation and it is not unusual in agreements of this type. Its practical meaning is that a dispute about whether a tool was authorized is not a dispute you enter from a strong position.

Forfeited balances

Here it is worth being careful about what the text does and does not say. The clauses we found describe cancelling operations and resetting results rather than confiscating a balance outright, and we found no clause stating that funds are forfeited for automation specifically. The distinction matters because the forfeiture claim circulates widely and is usually asserted without a source. What can be said from the document is that operations may be cancelled, results may be reset, and the agreement may be ended without explanation.

The agreement allows cancelled operations, reset results and termination without explanation. Frequency is not published by anyone.

Why unofficial algos are risky

Separate from the terms, third-party automation carries technical risks that have nothing to do with whether the trading logic is any good.

These risks apply to well-intentioned tools as much as to dishonest ones, because they follow from what automation software has to be able to do.

Credential access

Any tool that places trades needs a logged-in session. In practice that means it holds your credentials, or it controls a browser where you are logged in, or it operates through an extension with access to the page. All three are ordinary technical requirements and all three mean the software can reach more than the trade button. Where the supplier is a company you can name, that is a normal vendor relationship. Where the supplier is an anonymous account distributing a file, it is not.

Malware exposure

Executable files distributed through messaging channels are a well-known delivery route for software that does something other than advertised. The trading claim provides the reason to run it, and the permissions the tool legitimately needs provide the cover for what it does afterwards. This is not a claim about any particular product; it is a description of why this category is attractive to people distributing malware.

One more consideration applies specifically to tools that drive the platform interface. Because they act by clicking where a button currently sits, any change to the layout can cause them to click something else, and the tool has no way of knowing it has done so. The failure is silent: contracts are placed, they are not the ones you intended, and you discover it from the balance rather than from an error message. That risk is not dishonesty on anyone's part; it is what happens when software is bolted onto an interface it was not designed to work with.

No accountability

If a purchased tool loses money, misfires, or stops working, there is usually nobody to raise it with. Sellers in this market are frequently anonymous, payments are often irreversible, and channels close. That is the difference between buying software from an identifiable business and buying it from a channel, and it holds regardless of how good the underlying rules might be.

Automation software needs access to your session by design. That makes the identity of the supplier a first-order question.

Staying on the safe side

The route that avoids all of this is also the route that produces a better method, which is a convenient coincidence.

Nothing in this section requires you to give up on the idea of systematic trading. It requires the system to live in your written rules rather than in someone else's software.

Reading the terms

Open the operator's public offer yourself and read the sections on prohibited activity and on cancellation of operations. It takes a few minutes, the language is plainer than most agreements of its type, and it means your understanding comes from the document rather than from a summary written by someone selling a tool. Note the date you read it, because these documents change.

Where the line becomes blurry is with browser extensions that add drawing tools, alerts or interface changes. Most of these do nothing but display information, which puts them clearly on the informing side. Some also offer a one-click trade feature, which puts that feature on the acting side. The distinction is not about the product as a whole but about what any individual function does, and the safe reading is to avoid using the feature that places the contract even if the rest of the tool is useful.

Avoiding banned tools

The practical rule is narrow and easy to keep: do not run third-party software that places trades on your account. That leaves everything else available, including alert tools that watch conditions and notify you, spreadsheets, journals and any amount of preparation done away from the platform. The distinction is between software that informs you and software that acts for you, and only the second engages the clause.

Keeping a dated note of what the agreement said when you read it is a small habit with real value. Terms change, and a trader who read a clause eighteen months ago is often working from a version that no longer exists. A short file with the date, the clause and a link takes two minutes to maintain and means that any later question starts from a record rather than from memory of a summary.

Manual trading focus

A rule set you execute yourself has no term question attached to it at all. It also forces the discipline that automation is usually bought to avoid, which is following your own rules under pressure. If that is the problem you actually have, the fix described across the risk and psychology pages here is a session cap and a fixed stake rather than a tool. You can run your rules by hand on virtual funds and find out within a few sessions whether the difficulty is the rules or the following of them.

• Read the current agreement. Note the date; it changes.
• Nothing third-party places trades. The one rule that keeps you clear.
• Alert tools are a different category. They inform rather than act.
• Fix following-the-rules with rules, not with software.

Do not let third-party software place trades. Everything else in the toolkit remains available.

Bot-rule takeaways

This is a subject where the calm reading is more useful than either the dismissive one or the alarmed one.

Automation is restricted

The agreement addresses unauthorized bot software directly, names it as grounds for cancelling an operation, and publishes no list of what would count as authorized. That is enough to make third-party automation a decision with a rule dimension, and it is the part most tool marketing omits entirely.

None of this is a reason to feel uneasy about the platform. Terms restricting automated software are standard across the industry, and a trader who executes their own rules by hand never encounters the clause at all.

Bans are real

The powers reserved in the document are broad: cancellation of operations, resetting of results, and termination of the agreement without explanation. What is not available to anyone, including us, is any information about how often those powers are exercised. Treat the clause as describing what may happen rather than what usually happens, and treat sources that state frequencies as sources that are guessing.

• Read the primary document. It is short and it is the only authority here.
• Cancellation attaches to operations. Termination is a separate, broader power.
• Forfeiture claims are usually unsourced. The text we found describes cancellation and reset.
• Nobody publishes enforcement rates. Including this desk.

A short word about how this subject is usually discussed online. Automation threads tend to produce two kinds of confident statement: that everyone uses bots and nothing happens, and that accounts are closed routinely. Neither is supported by anything published, because nothing is published. Treating both as unsourced and going back to the agreement itself is the only approach that leaves you with a defensible understanding, and it takes less time than reading the thread.

Protect your account

The protective measures are small and they cost nothing. Do not share credentials, do not run executables from messaging channels, do not let third-party software trade for you, and keep your own rules written down so that the appeal of automation is about convenience rather than desperation. A trader with a tested rule set and a session limit has very little reason to hand execution to an anonymous tool, which is the most reliable protection available and the only one entirely within your control.

Read the agreement, keep third-party software off your account, and let the rules live in your own notes.