Evaluating sources
The decisive question for any financial source is how it makes money. Someone who profits from you trading gives different advice than someone who doesn't.
Ask this one question of every source first: how does this person or site make its money? The answer almost always explains why the advice comes out the way it does.
Someone earning affiliate commissions from account openings recommends opening accounts. Someone selling courses stresses that you need to learn in order to succeed. That doesn't have to be dishonest, but it reliably colors the advice.
Second question: does the source also show its mistakes? Show only wins, and you're not showing your results, you're showing a selection. Screenshots of gains are the cheapest and most common tool of fraud there is.
Third question: is there evidence? A claim about historical returns should have a source. If only confidence gets offered instead, that's a warning sign, not proof of competence.
Conflicts of interest sort systematically by compensation model: commissions on product sign-ups, pay tied to trading volume, sale of educational content, ad revenue tied to reach, or independent funding through users or public money. Each model produces a predictable direction of bias, regardless of personal honesty.
For performance claims, a distinction is needed between documented and asserted results. Only complete, externally verifiable statements covering a longer period and including every position are reliable. Excerpts of individual positions carry no informational value because of selection bias, and neither do results from demo accounts.
For scientific claims, watch for replicability and publication bias. Individual studies with striking results often don't hold up under scrutiny, which is why review papers and broadly replicated findings should be preferred. For financial-market questions, concretely, that means grounding claims in regularities confirmed across decades and multiple markets, rather than single studies.
Summary
- Ask first how a source makes its money.
- Selected screenshots of gains carry no evidence value at all.
- Broadly replicated findings beat a single striking study.
Did you get it?
What's the first question to ask of any financial source?
How it makes money. The compensation model determines the direction of bias.
Why are individual gain screenshots worthless?
Because they're a selection. Only complete, verifiable records carry weight.
What should scientific claims be grounded in?
Broadly replicated findings across long periods and multiple markets, rather than single studies.