EU拠点のプロップファームのオンボーディングにおける摩擦 – 経験共有はありますか？

I've definitely noticed a similar trend with EU-regulated entities, not just prop firms. It seems like the regulatory burden has increased significantly in recent years, leading to more intensive KYB processes. Are you finding it's specific types of documentation, or just the overall depth of the inquiry?

I've definitely experienced this with a couple of the newer EU-regulated firms. It feels like they're overcorrecting a bit on the compliance side, perhaps to avoid any future regulatory issues. Have you tried reaching out directly to the compliance department to see if there's any flexibility or clearer guidance on what's truly essential versus what might be boilerplate?

I've seen this too. My theory is that it's less about the capital and more about the AML/CTF regs hitting prop firms harder due to their leverage and faster transaction speeds.

It's not just the EU; KYC/KYB has become a nightmare across the board. The regulators are pushing these requirements harder than ever, and smaller firms are often less equipped to handle it efficiently, making the process feel even more painful for the user. What kind of documentation are they asking for that feels disproportionate?

I've definitely noticed a similar trend with EU-based prop firms. The KYC/KYB requirements have become quite stringent, likely a direct result of increased regulatory scrutiny post-MiFID II. It makes sense from their end, but it certainly adds a layer of complexity for the trader.