High-risk signals Copy & signal trading

iMarketsLive Promises 2% a Day; No Company, No Regulator, No Custodian Named

The promotion we archived advertises a fixed 2% daily return, but names no operating company, no jurisdiction, and no one who holds client money.

You meet it in a group chat or a short video: a screen showing a balance ticking up 2% a day, a friend who says they already doubled, and an invitation to start small. The pitch is simple and the number is round. What is missing is anyone you could hold responsible if the withdrawals stop.

The pitch, in its own words

The promotion we archived is built on one number: 2% per day. The material presents this as a fixed payout, not a target and not a range. The example used is a $1,000 principal, which would pay $20 per day and about $608.33 per month.

Nothing in the material states a minimum deposit, a lock-up period, a fee schedule, or a withdrawal process. There is no guarantee language to quote because there is no document to quote from — only the return claim itself, repeated.

That is the entire offer. There is no description of what the money is traded in, what the strategy is, who executes it, or what happens in a losing month.

What we were able to check

We tried to answer four basic questions. Three of them have no answer in the material.

• Who operates it? No operating company, registration number or jurisdiction is stated anywhere in the material we archived. Nothing identifies who is legally behind the product.
• Is it regulated? No regulator search is on record for this name. Either it claims no jurisdiction at all, or the jurisdiction it claims does not license products of this kind.
• Who holds the money? Nothing states where client money is held or who can move it. Without a licensed custodian or a segregated account, a withdrawal is a promise, not a claim on an asset.
• Who is promoting it? No affiliate, referral or paid-promotion structure was visible in the material we archived. That is not a clearance: paid distribution is easy to hide, this is a snapshot in time, and it says nothing about whether a withdrawal is ever honoured.

The earliest point at which the promotion is on record is 7 October 2026. That is the only dated observation we have.

The arithmetic that breaks it

A fixed 2% per day compounds fast. On the advertised rate:

• Money doubles in about 35 days.
• After one year, $1,000 becomes about $1,377,410 — an annualised rate of 137,640.83%.
• After three years, the same $1,000 would be about $2.6 billion.
• At 2% per day, a $1,000 principal would pass $1 million in under a year.

Those are not marketing projections. They are what the advertised rate does when you apply it consistently. A product that doubles money every 35 days and keeps doing it for three years would outgrow every large investment fund in the world within a few years. Nothing in the material explains where a return of that size would come from, and nothing names a market, a counterparty or a strategy that could produce it.

Why the numbers need new money

A fixed daily payout has to be paid from somewhere. If the underlying activity does not generate 2% every day, the only source of the next payout is the next deposit.

That is why the missing custody disclosure matters more than the missing company name. When nobody is named as holding the money, there is no separate account a participant could point to. The balance shown on a screen is a number in someone else's system. It is not a claim on an asset, and it can be changed, frozen or simply stop being honoured.

This is also why early withdrawals are proves nothing about anything. In a structure that pays old participants from new deposits, the first withdrawals are the cheapest thing to honour. They buy credibility. What they do not show is whether the money was ever invested in anything.

The strength-of-evidence check

Here is what we can and cannot say.

We can say: the promotion advertises a fixed 2% per day; no operating entity, registration number or jurisdiction appears anywhere in the material; no regulator search is on record; and nothing states who holds client funds. Those are absences in the material itself, not opinions about it.

We cannot say: who is behind it, where they are, whether any money was ever invested, or whether any participant has been paid. We have one dated observation, 7 October 2026. We have no withdrawal records, no account statements, and no contract.

The structure matches a guaranteed-return pitch. On the evidence we could check, nothing in the material reconciles a fixed 2% daily payout with a named, regulated, auditable product — because there is no named product to audit.

What would change our assessment

A small number of concrete disclosures would move this from unverifiable to checkable. We list them so a reader can ask for them directly.

• A named legal entity, with a registration number and a jurisdiction, that can be looked up independently.
• A licence or authorisation from a regulator that actually covers products of this kind, in the jurisdiction claimed.
• A statement of who holds client money, at which institution, and whether the account is segregated.
• A written explanation of how a fixed 2% daily return is generated, including what happens in a losing period.
• Withdrawal terms in writing: notice period, fees, limits, and who authorises a payout.

Until those exist, the reader cannot verify the return, cannot verify the custody of their money, and cannot identify anyone accountable if the payouts stop. That is the whole of what the material supports.

What to do if you are already in

• Do not send money to a product that advertises a fixed daily return.
• Ask for the legal entity name, registration number and jurisdiction in writing, then look them up yourself.
• Check whether the named regulator actually licenses products of this kind in that jurisdiction.
• Ask who holds client funds and whether the account is segregated; get the answer in writing.
• If you have already deposited, test a small withdrawal early and keep the record of what happened.
• Keep copies of every payment, message, screen and wallet address connected to the deposit.
• Do not recruit friends or family into it while you are still unable to verify it.
• Report the promotion to the financial regulator in your own country and talk to a licensed adviser before committing more.

In plain terms, what the record shows

• Promises a fixed return of about 2% per day — no regulated investment product can hold to a guaranteed per-day payout.
• No company, registration number or jurisdiction is named, so there is no one to hold legally accountable.

Questions readers ask about this one

Is iMarketsLive regulated?

No regulator search is on record for this name. The material we archived names no jurisdiction and no licence, so there is nothing to check against a public register.

How much is 2% per day over a year?

Compounded daily, 2% turns $1,000 into about $1,377,410 in one year — an annualised rate of 137,640.83%. Money doubles roughly every 35 days at that rate.

Who owns iMarketsLive?

Nothing in the material we reviewed identifies an operating company, a registration number or a jurisdiction. There is no named entity to look up.

Where is my money held if I deposit?

The material does not say. No custodian, institution or segregated account is named, so a withdrawal would rest on a promise rather than a claim on a held asset.

What the promised number actually compounds to

iMarketsLive advertises roughly 2% per day. Compounded and left alone, that is:

Compounded, no fees, no tax, no slippage, and — crucially — assuming every withdrawal is actually paid. The last row is the interesting one: a fixed payout has to be funded every single month, and the money has to come either from a real position earning it or from whoever deposits next.

Check the same figure yourself with the daily return calculator, put it next to what is actually guaranteed with the guaranteed-return check, or ask where the payout comes from in the new-deposit calculator.

Strength-of-evidence check

This number measures how much can be checked, and a low score is the dangerous case: nobody outside the operation can verify who runs it, whether it is supervised, or where the money sits — and unverifiable is where the loss risk lives. Read a low score as a warning, not as a technicality. A high score buys you nothing either: a well-documented operation is still a proposition you have to check yourself before you send any money.

What the register holds on this name

Name as promoted

iMarketsLive

Also seen as

iMarketsLive

First logged

7 October 2026

Last re-checked

16 October 2026

Think this entry is wrong?

Entries are re-checked and corrections are published in the changelog rather than made quietly. If a project has shut down, changed hands or can produce something we could not find, tell us.