Talk:Nadex

Fair use rationale for Image:Hsx logo.gif
Image:Hsx logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewritten
On December 26, 2007, I rewrote the article based on concerns raised in the August 2007 AFD and a new nomination for deletion of the essentially unchanged article. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 19:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced
I hope you don't mind that I added the unreferenced tag to this completely unreferenced article, seeing as it's true that I once received an email from the CEO of a competitor company. The edit seemed straightforward, especially seeing as the competitor company article is fully protected and has two-month-old edit requests from a user with a managed COI that haven't been addressed. But please feel free to disagree with me. Okteriel (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to NeilN for validating my view on this. Okteriel (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm keeping the tag, but I found the references! Ceyockey had 7 of them in his helpful draft here. But somehow they got deleted from the article! (Maybe it was those crazy BDB socks and IPs I keep hearing about.) Please keep the tag up until someone has time to readd them or review them against the current version. I have been asked to focus on more constructive and noncontroversial edits. Okteriel (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And the culprit was incredibly easy to find and does not appear to be a sock of anyone. But the work still needs undoing. With a misleading edit summary, the user deleted the sourced principal and founder names, all citations, even the word "bet"!! Sounds like a whitewash to me. Should I step in and fix it? Okteriel (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And I just checked with an oversighter in IRC and it's confirmed that I can tell you safely that the IP essentially outs himself on his second edit, which is how I suspect he's not a sock of anyone. But he's been a binary-options SPA ever since that same week in 2008. Anyway, should I step in and fix it? Okteriel (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Restored the referenced version. Pretty simple. -- Neil N  talk to me  23:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Declaration of possible COI
Hello All,

I am user User:BDBJack, who because I work for another company in the Binary Options industry, may have inherent COI that I am not aware of with the subject of the article. However, I will refrain from making any direct edits on the page without first going through the COI Edit Request process.

I am interested in the subject due to it being related to the industry which I work in, however I will strive to write articles and suggestions that are inline with NPOV policies. Please feel free to notify me if I am breaking these policies, or if you believe that my COI is influencing my ability to contribute to this article.

Thank You

BDBJack (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit Requests for article
request edit

In the first paragraph of the article, the sentence

"Nadex offers traders the opportunity to trade limited risk binary options and spreads on the most heavily forex, commodities and stock indices markets"

should be corrected to

"Nadex offers traders the opportunity to trade limited risk binary options and spreads on the most heavily traded forex, commodities and stock indices markets.",

or (for a better referenced statement):

"NADEX is an exchange which offers Binary Options trading on 25 instruments including currencies, commodities, stocks, indicies and sometimes events." (http://binarymarketanalysis.com/how-is-nadex-different-from-other-binary-options/)

Additionally, I believe that the following statment should be added to the article:

"NADEX offers Binary Options trading which differs from the European version of Binary Options as regulated by European Regulators such as CySEC." (http://binarymarketanalysis.com/how-is-nadex-different-from-other-binary-options/)

BDBJack (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jack, as I've told people, I may have a mild form of the same COI, so, I don't mind if my comments are discounted when paired with yours. These are good observations, and I'll add the word "traded" myself, because it seems a legitimate grammar fix. There is definitely a need to disambiguate EU from US BO regulation. It might be a bit of a push to go all the way to mentioning CySEC, but, then, I don't know the industry. Who else is doing this kind of regulating besides CySEC and CFTC? Everyone I'm reading acts like Nadex and BDB are the only two players, and I take that rumor with a grain of salt. Also, I read on nadex.com that they are the exchange (DCM) AND the clearinghouse (DCO). How can that be, if BDB is in such trouble with other Wikipedians due to the belief that it is controlling the market by taking both roles? Sounds very fishy on Nadex's part, especially given the rest of it. Anyway, at least you can help solve my confusion! Okteriel (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It turned out, NeilN mooted the request 4 minutes before you made it, by reverting the unfounded and noncompliant IP editing I mention above, plus interim changes. On hasty review, I support the reversion, but you may well have comments about the older version. Just so that none of us trip over each other. Okteriel (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Binary Market Analysis looks like a blog. There's no indication who's behind it which makes it difficult to accept as a WP:RS. -- Neil N  talk to me  23:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, what makes this article / subject notable to qualify for a page in the first place? In truth, the difference between American Binary Options and European Binary Options should be discussed on the Binary options page rather than here. 2.55.117.74 (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This sourced text for starters: "HedgeStreet was the first Internet-based government regulated (CFTC) event futures/derivatives exchange." See WP:CORP for more info about company notability standards. -- Neil N  talk to me  02:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nadex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018214924/http://www.thestreet.com/_tscs/options/stevensmith/10196132.html to http://www.thestreet.com/_tscs/options/stevensmith/10196132.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Big news
Crypto.com has aquired NADEX! 174.21.185.223 (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)