Access to free signals in restricted regions

New comment
 

I noticed that accessing free/demo signals still requires full registration/verification even for users in Iran.

Since these are free signals (no money involved, no trading of real capital, purely for demo/testing), why is the registration requirement still enforced? It seems like an unnecessary hurdle for developers who just want to test the functionality of these systems.

Isn’t it logical to allow free, non-monetary access without such strict registration barriers? What is the rationale behind this?

 
Farhad Soltani:

I noticed that accessing free/demo signals still requires full registration/verification even for users in Iran.

Since these are free signals (no money involved, no trading of real capital, purely for demo/testing), why is the registration requirement still enforced? It seems like an unnecessary hurdle for developers who just want to test the functionality of these systems.

Isn’t it logical to allow free, non-monetary access without such strict registration barriers? What is the rationale behind this?

Registration/verification is likely required due to the nature of the Signals service. Qualified users are allowed to post Reviews of a Signal, so it makes sense to verify that the user posting the Review is legitimate. Otherwise, Signal providers could spoof their own Reviews, or competing Signal providers could post smear Reviews.
 
Farhad Soltani:

I noticed that accessing free/demo signals still requires full registration/verification even for users in Iran.

Since these are free signals (no money involved, no trading of real capital, purely for demo/testing), why is the registration requirement still enforced? It seems like an unnecessary hurdle for developers who just want to test the functionality of these systems.

Isn’t it logical to allow free, non-monetary access without such strict registration barriers? What is the rationale behind this?

what are you on about? seller registration is requirement for all users to create signal service. and you could prove me wrong, however, i am sure that even sellers cannot create a free signal service, even for personal use.

And restricting the service to only live trading just makes sense: it ensures that server bandwidth available for live signal services is not affected or limited by free ones.

 
Ryan L Johnson #:
Registration/verification is likely required due to the nature of the Signals service. Qualified users are allowed to post Reviews of a Signal, so it makes sense to verify that the user posting the Review is legitimate.

"That is a fair point regarding the legitimacy of Reviews. I understand the need to prevent spam and ensure that reviews come from real users who have actually tested the signal.

However, for those of us who are strictly interested in the technical/algorithmic analysis of the signal (or simply testing the connection logic) without any intention to post a review or copy the trades, wouldn’t it be possible to allow a ‘read-only’ or ‘data-only’ access?

It seems like there could be a distinction between ‘Active Subscribers/Reviewers’ and ‘Passive Observers/Testers.’ Providing a way to access the signal data for testing purposes—without enabling review/subscription privileges—would solve the barrier for developers in restricted regions without compromising the integrity of your review system.

Just a thought, as it would greatly help those of us building and testing trading logic."

 
Michael Charles Schefe #:
what are you on about? seller registration is requirement for all users to create signal service. and you could prove me wrong, however, i am sure that even sellers cannot create a free signal service, even for personal use.

I understand your point, and you are right that seller registration is required for anyone who wants to create a Signal service – that makes sense for paid or real‑money signals.

However, in my case I am specifically talking about creating a free signal with no real money involved – for example, a purely demo account signal used only for testing, research or sharing strategies, without any commercial intent.

From a logical perspective, if:

  • the signal is free,
  • it is attached only to a demo account, and
  • no real capital or payments are involved,

then a lighter or alternative registration path for such “demo‑only / free” providers would make sense.

My question is whether MetaQuotes makes any distinction between:

  • regular Signal Providers who handle real money followers, and
  • developers who just want to publish a free, demo‑only signal for testing and educational purposes.

If there is absolutely no difference on the platform side, then I understand the limitation. But it would be very helpful for developers in restricted regions if free/demo‑only signals could have a less strict onboarding process.

 
Farhad Soltani #:

"That is a fair point regarding the legitimacy of Reviews. I understand the need to prevent spam and ensure that reviews come from real users who have actually tested the signal.

However, for those of us who are strictly interested in the technical/algorithmic analysis of the signal (or simply testing the connection logic) without any intention to post a review or copy the trades, wouldn’t it be possible to allow a ‘read-only’ or ‘data-only’ access?

It seems like there could be a distinction between ‘Active Subscribers/Reviewers’ and ‘Passive Observers/Testers.’ Providing a way to access the signal data for testing purposes—without enabling review/subscription privileges—would solve the barrier for developers in restricted regions without compromising the integrity of your review system.

Just a thought, as it would greatly help those of us building and testing trading logic."

Metaquotes won't implement that option. Consider a user who anonymously receives the Signal, and then turns around and sells subscriptions as if it were that user's Signal─on mql5.com or elsewhere.
 
Ryan L Johnson #:
Metaquotes won't implement that option. Consider a user who anonymously receives the Signal, and then turns around and sells subscriptions as if it were that user's Signal─on mql5.com or elsewhere.

"That is a valid point, and I appreciate you highlighting the risk of signal reselling. Protecting intellectual property and preventing unauthorized commercial use is certainly critical for the integrity of the platform.

Thank you for providing that perspective. Since this involves a fundamental policy question regarding platform access for developers in restricted regions, I would still value an official stance or clarification from the MetaQuotes team on whether any middle-ground options might ever be considered for non-commercial/testing purposes.

Thanks again for your time and the input."

 
Farhad Soltani #:

"That is a valid point, and I appreciate you highlighting the risk of signal reselling. Protecting intellectual property and preventing unauthorized commercial use is certainly critical for the integrity of the platform.

Thank you for providing that perspective. Since this involves a fundamental policy question regarding platform access for developers in restricted regions, I would still value an official stance or clarification from the MetaQuotes team on whether any middle-ground options might ever be considered for non-commercial/testing purposes.

Thanks again for your time and the input."

You're most welcome. I find it hard to believe that you're in a region restricted by Metaquotes. At least where I come from, restrictions are placed on individuals and corporations─not entire regions. Of course, private banks have their own restrictions. Maybe that factors in somehow.
 
Ryan L Johnson #:
You're most welcome. I find it hard to believe that you're in a region restricted by Metaquotes. At least where I come from, restrictions are placed on individuals and corporations─not entire regions. Of course, private banks have their own restrictions. Maybe that factors in somehow.

"You make a very fair point. In an ideal scenario, restrictions should indeed target specific entities rather than entire regions. However, the situation for us is primarily driven by international compliance requirements that global companies like MetaQuotes often adopt as a ‘blanket policy’ to minimize their own legal risks.

It’s less about the individual’s credentials and more about the immense complexity of processing financial flows or verifying legal documentation from regions under comprehensive international sanctions. Private banking restrictions, as you mentioned, are just one layer of this broader challenge.

For many of us in this situation, it’s not about lack of professional merit, but rather an issue of jurisdictional compliance. Regardless, I appreciate your perspective—it’s always good to look at these challenges from different angles."

 
@MetaQuotes, please consider developing a segregated user verification system for individuals in financially restricted regions─in which said users would be blocked from financial transactions but have acces to free Market products and free Signals. As this Forum thread demonstrates, such users clearly have access to MT5 and the greater mql5.com Community. Creating such a system can only increase usage of MT5 across the world and hence, attract more broker-dealers to contract with Metaquotes.
 
Ryan L Johnson #:
@MetaQuotes, please consider developing a segregated user verification system for individuals in financially restricted regions─in which said users would be blocked from financial transactions but have acces to free Market products and free Signals. As this Forum thread demonstrates, such users clearly have access to MT5 and the greater mql5.com Community. Creating such a system can only increase usage of MT5 across the world and hence, attract more broker-dealers to contract with Metaquotes.
Thank you very much for your positive feedback and understanding, Ryan L Johnson. Your support and insights have been truly valuable and helped me grasp these issues better.
New comment