BEWARE of Real Binary Options Robot – review.
In this review we explain why you should not trade with the Real Binary Options Robot .
Real Binary Options Robot is an anonymous service provided by an anonymous person who claims to have over 6 years of experience as a trader.
The robot allegedly can make you up to $8000 per month. And up to the $25 trading size the robot is free, so is it worth trying?
Table of Contents.
Don’t trade with Real Binary Options Robot.
While analyzing the Real Binary Options Robot, we found several major issues . First of all, as we have already mentioned, it is a totally anonymous signals service, which is illegal.
If you want to provide investment advice in the shape of trading signals, in most countries you have to be registered, you have to have a licence. And Real Binary Options Robot is obviously not licensed .
And it is very easy to doubt the alleged 6-year history of “keeping binary options real”, because the site is just 2 years old. Look at our picture.
Illegal service.
Real Binary Options Robot is trying to bypass the legal issue of providing investment advice by providing the trading signals through But the problem here is that is not regulated either!
We have already reviewed this service and it has no authorization to serve people from countries that regulate investing, which is basically every developed country in this world. So this trick doesn’t work, Real Binary Options Robot signals remain illegal in most countries.
How it works.
From reading the set up instructions for the Real Binary Options Robo,t we clearly see that the main purpose of this program is to earn affiliate commissions from referring you to and This is how people who run this robot are earning money.
We recommend not to trade with Real Binary Options Robot , because it is pushing you to use unregulated investment services.
We always recommend to trade with regulated brokers only.
John Novak.
Review Date.
Reviewed Item.
Real Binary Options Robot.
Author Rating.
4 thoughts on “ BEWARE of Real Binary Options Robot – review ”
Paul says:
You clearly did not attend his live webinar 18 months or so ago. Then you would have seen that the person talking was the same person as in the “stock photo”. You seem to not understand how Google Image Search works. You cannot just search a person’s name and then conclude that a photo is a stock photo. Search for yourself and see what also comes up. Plus, it makes use of, but you fail to mention this. Requiring a license for letting people freely choose to use a robot is like requiring streamers on Youtube to have a broadcasting license. Some politicians actually think that is ok, but they are living in the 1950s, and not many other people agree with them. You clearly haven’t done your homework very well, so it is your review that sucks, not his service. Your numerous “reviews” on numerous websites (around the same time but under different names) smell like a competitor or otherwise disgruntled individual. I wonder if you yourself have a “license for giving financial advice” with your bogus reviews? This comment has been posted to several websites with the same wording. But that’s fine, as I actually did my homework. Unless you do a proper review of Bojan Matjasic’s actual service, your own “service” here is itself confirmed laughable.
John Novak says:
Why are you commenting an article that you did not read? There is nothing about stock photos in our review. I did not even know that the name of the guy was Bojan Matjasic. Now that I know it thanks to you, I have to laugh. A guy who studied arts and is teaching chakra balancing is also teaching financial trading? Really? Another thing, we are exposing investment scams, and for this we don’t need any licence. But when you tell people how to trade or you give them a robot that will trade for them or generate trading signals, it is investment advice, which is a regulated activity in most countries. I strongly encourage anybody who has doubts to ask their national financial authority/regulator about Real Binary Options Robot, or any other robot/signals service for that matter. You don’t have to trust us, trust your regulator. I am absolutely sure that no matter the country, every financial regulator will confirm what we say in reviews.
Paul says:
I did read your article, but may have wrongly assumed that your review was just one of multiple hit pieces, as they were written within a few days of each other and put up on sites that resemble each other. There is at least one known scammer within binary options review sites, and he is said to have multiple sites. So I chose to just post one “collated” comment on each of them, as they were presumably written by the same person, with merely some differences here and there, so as to not give this away. If I was wrong about your review then my comment was clearly irrelevant. If that’s the case, my bad. However, there are still some issues, so let me get more specific to your article and your comments. Concerning regulation, that’s up to people themselves, in many people’s opinion. I’ll bet Bitcoin is illegal to use somewhere, but people do it anyway, and good for them. Same goes for binary options. No need to impose “protections” on everyone when some people have enough knowledge to choose for themselves how to risk their money. And anyway, the specifics on regulation of giving financial advice varies somewhat from place to place, you cannot just generalize. Bojan may have a company in Slovenia for tax and liability purposes, but on he was clearly seen as a private person, just as the other providers on there. Many things have gotten much more gray after the advent of the Internet. Plus, I can choose to receive financial advice from my neighbour no matter what any law says. No one is going to prosecute my neighbour for that. If you think this kind of advice is somehow wrong, then most people simply won’t care. It’s their money, their risk. And most (if not all) of them have the understanding that they are not receiving the same kind of service as if they had contacted a financial institution. They know that they are taking an extra risk, and they choose to do so anyway. Perhaps you are one of those people who thinks that Youtubers need a broadcasting license for their live webcasts? And why not? They are actually broadcasting. But if you think like that, then you’re living in the pre-Internet past. Things have changed with the Internet, but laws aren’t up to speed. Binary options advice is not on the same level as advice on eg. buying a house or investing for retirement. Plus, many regulators don’t actually know what binary options are, so why let them regulate “advice” concerning them? And anyway, a robot that places trades in a “hands off” way for the user cannot seriously be considered as giving advice. You clearly seem to say that his service cannot be trusted because he has studied arts. So you apparently think that a person who has studied arts can know absolutely nothing about biology, literature, physics, economics, or binary options. You must have low expectations for people. Many people have taken the time to become knowledgeable in multiple and very different fields at the same time, but you apparently expect people to just stick to one field for life, and presumably have documentation for this and also a license in order to have any credibility whatsoever. Well, let the customers choose for themselves whether they trust his knowledge. Sometimes nurses treat patients in lack of a doctor, and still no one dies from it, as what the non-doctor does is either sufficient or even completely up to standard. Same goes for financial advice, as many private investors acting on the “hear-say” of eg. friends or websites can attest to. Besides, whether one has studied arts or not, learning about technical analysis (as he shows on his Youtube review channel that he has done) is not reserved for people educated in finance and investing. Almost anyone can learn it, you only need to put in the work. When Bojan held his live webinar in early 2016 he showed his face. How many scammers would do that? He published a lot of info on his website, more than the average scammer would take the time to do, way more detailed than with the average scammer, and way more organized than the average scammer seems to have the aptitude for doing. Still, you would have to just trust in this info, yes. But the same goes for advice from one’s bank (banks themselves have a conflict of interest). And btw, no one really knows who you reviewers are either. Whatever you may try to claim you are, whichever expertise you claim to have, we simply don’t know. And saying that you yourself don’t need a license doesn’t do anything to raise my trust in you. But I can choose to trust you anyway. People come to these review sites in order to get an honest review. But when I read something that looks like a hit piece on someone – because I just happen to know that the reviews are off at least by a bit, and some by a lot – then how am I to trust any of the reviews on these sites, yours included? You admit to not even knowing the guy’s name (which wasn’t difficult to get, had you read the robot’s comments section on and then googled a bit). Your review of his website was somewhat hurried. You made an unnecessary fuss about his domain age not matching his claimed years of experience, and you even claimed that he earns commissions from where many users already would have an account (which means no commissions to him), as it’s the biggest broker out there. These are good reasons why I assumed that you were probably either a competitor to him in some sense, a scammer yourself, or someone who for some reason is mad at him. These review sites all look more or less the same. So when there is clearly either false or lacking information given on several of them, and they all give off the same “feel”, either because of layout and/or language, then how can we trust any of them? Can you see why people might feel suspicious of some of these reviews? If you are indeed seperate review websites, then perhaps some of you should start standing out from the others, not just in review quality, but also simply in things such as layout and language in order to increase the trust. Any business should want to raise trust in their potential customers. An unnecessarily “messy” layout or language resembling that of similar websites can on their own give a visitor the feeling of looking at a website not to be trusted. In any case, I hope that these comments will make you take another look at his robot in the near future, as he is leaving for his own system, on his own server. Yes, that can make one’s bells go off, mine as well. But he does it because of all the problems users had with which gave different outcomes due to delays in communication. So even though I generally trust the guy, it would be nice to have others take a good look at his new service. He has gone from delivering signals over email/sms, to using for increasing efficiency and trust, and now to letting his robot communicate directly with without having and users’ browsers/VPSs delay the process. His website has been altered to reflect the new service, and as he’s aware of the bad reviews (which he himself calls “fake”), he’s asking users to place a personal review on his website using their Facebook profile. Lastly, however one looks at it, because of the recent changes, those numerous critical reviews of his robot from September 2017 and earlier are no longer valid.
John Novak says:
Well, Slovenia is in the EU and the entire EU regulates investment advice, that is the law. So if you have no licence, you cannot provide such a service and it is also illegal to send people to a service that is not regulated like Again, anybody can confirm this with their national regulator. This is the main thing that matters to me.