How do you recognize problematic lack of transparency
1. Unclear actors
Warning signal: Responsibility cannot be clearly assigned
2. Non-transparent monetization
Warning signal: Interests cannot be evaluated
3. Performance without origin
Warning signal: Numbers appear objective, but are without context
4. Activation instead of classification
Warning signal: Behavior is triggered, not reflected upon.
5. Demo results as proof of performance
Warning signal: Reality is replaced by simulation.
6. Black box strategies
Warning signal: Control is relinquished without insight
7. (Fin)Influencer without disclosure
Warning signal: Trust is generated emotionally, not based on content.
8. Results-oriented language
Focus almost exclusively on profits
Risks only mentioned in general or formal terms
Drawdowns are trivialized or ignored
Warning signal: Expectation management is missing.
9. Responsibility
Warning signal: Asymmetrical risk allocation
10. "Too simple to be true"
Warning signal: Reality is systematically ignored.
The less visible it is who decides, who benefits and who bears the risks, the greater the information asymmetry.
1. affiliate model
Compensation per referral or completion
How does it work?
The finfluencer receives compensation when users use a personalized link to:
Payment is typically made:
Why is this attractive?
Easy to implement Scalable with reach Independent of users' actual trading success
Where is the conflict of interest?
The economic incentive lies before the actual use: Motivation for activation, not for suitability testing Success of the model does not depend on whether users benefit in the long term
Critical classification
Affiliate models reward persuasiveness, not quality of results. The more emotional and simplified the presentation, the higher the conversion
2. Commission model on current sales
Compensation dependent on activity or volume
How does it work?
The finfluencer receives:
As long as the referred user is actively trading, compensation flows.
Why is this attractive
Where is the conflict of interest?
A direct conflict of interest arises here:
Inactivity is often rational from a user perspective - but economically disadvantageous from a commission perspective.
Critical classification
This model favors: frequent action permanent market presence low inhibition thresholds Not because it delivers better results, but because activity itself is monetized.
3. "Order book share" / flow-based participation
Compensation via order flow or indirect market effects
How does it work? This model is less visible, but structurally relevant.
The finfluencer benefits indirectly when:
The remuneration is not always explicitly per user, but via:
Why is this attractive?
Where is the conflict of interest?
The user believes they are following a strategy or opinion. In fact, their order behavior is economically exploited without:
playing a role.
Critical classification
This model shifts the focus completely: from the outcome of the user to the usability of their behavior This mechanism is usually not recognizable to outsiders.
These constellations mentioned here in relation to the respective models are not illegal and not problematic per se
They become problematic when:
The user judges content according to its message -
the provider is remunerated according to its effect. This is the core of information asymmetry.
Rule of thumb: If remuneration is linked to activation, volume or order flow, every recommendation should also be read as a business model.
Conflict of interest is mitigated if the decision-making process of a prospective customer
Why is it important to recognize commission models?
Commission models influence how content is created and how it is presented. If you know the economic incentives behind recommendations, you can better classify statements - regardless of whether the recommendation is well-intentioned or technically correct.
It's not about discrediting content, but about making interests visible.
How can you recognize affiliate models?
Affiliate models can often be recognized by the following characteristics:
Typical is:
The recommendation ends before the actual use.
Classification: The economic incentive lies in the conclusion - not in long-term success.
How can you recognize volume- or activity-based commissions?
These models are less obvious, but are reflected in the tone and frequency of the content:
Classification: If inactivity hardly ever occurs, activity is usually economically relevant
How to recognize order book or flow-based investments
These models are the most difficult for users to recognize, as they are rarely communicated openly. Indirect indications can be:
The recommendation appears neutral, but is structurally bound.
Classification: It is not the result that is monetized here, but the behaviour
What role does the labelling of advertising play?
Formal labels such as:
are legally relevant, but often not very informative in terms of content.
The decisive factor is not the presence of advertising, but:
Classification: Transparency does not start with the label, but with the classification.
Why are success stories a strong indicator?
Success stories fulfill several functions:
They are particularly effective when:
Classification: Where storytelling replaces analysis, there is usually a monetary incentive.
How do you recognize a lack of alignment of interests?
A central test criterion is the question: Does the recommender bear the same risk as the following person?
Warning signals:
No clear statement on own capital commitment
Focus on reach instead of responsibility
Missing statements on own loss phases
Classification: If risk equality is missing, there is structural asymmetry.
Are there simple test questions for users?
Yes. Three simple questions are often enough:
How does the recommender earn money?
What will they actually benefit from if I take action?
What would happen if I did nothing?
The clearer these questions can be answered, the less information asymmetry there is
Final classification
Not every remunerated recommendation is problematic. In certain constellations, remuneration models can be a legitimate and necessary refinancing instrument for developing new products, services or initiatives. In particular, where these funds serve to educate, impart knowledge or develop consumer protection tools, they fulfill a comprehensible function. The decisive factor here is not the existence of economic interests, but the motivation with which they are used - and the purpose they ultimately serve.