OspreyFX review
OspreyFX ceased operations after a notice dated 6 June 2025. The client portal is permanently offline and withdrawals are handled by email. The firm appears in no register we check.
| Verdict | closed |
|---|---|
| Stopped operating | Announced 6 June 2025; user portal now permanently offline |
| Regulators | not verified |
OspreyFX has ceased operations. The site still carries the brand and the old marketing line about 1:500 leverage on crypto and forex, but the substance of the page is a closure notice, and the client portal is gone.
What the notice says
The firm’s own wording, still published on ospreyfx.com:
As per the email notification sent on June 6th, 2025, OspreyFX is ceasing its operations and undergoing the termination of its relationships with its technology providers. In that regard, we have since asked you to withdraw any remaining funds. The user portal is now permanently offline therefore should you still have funds to withdraw, please email [address] to request this.
Three things in that paragraph deserve attention, because they describe the position of anyone with a balance.
The portal is permanently offline. You cannot log in, check a balance, or initiate a withdrawal yourself. Whatever the account showed, the record of it now sits with the firm rather than with you.
Withdrawals happen by email request. There is no automated process and no stated timetable, so each case depends on the firm choosing to act on a message.
The firm disclaims responsibility. The notice goes on to disclaim all responsibility for losses or damages resulting from a customer’s failure to withdraw in response to its announcements. In other words, the position taken is that clients were told, and what happens now follows from their own delay.
That disclaimer is worth reading twice if you never received the June 2025 email, which is a common situation when an address has changed or a message went to spam.
Regulatory position
| Register | Result |
|---|---|
| ASIC (Australia), 6,525 licensees | not found |
| CySEC (Cyprus), 247 investment firms | not found |
| FCA warning list | not named |
No entry in any register we verify directly. As with any firm outside a supervised perimeter, the wind-down is being run by the company itself: no administrator, no regulator setting deadlines, no compensation scheme standing behind the balances.
The marketing that remains on the page is a reminder of what the offer looked like. 1:500 leverage on cryptocurrencies is roughly 250 times the ESMA cap on crypto CFDs for retail clients, which is 2:1, and it is not available from any entity regulated in the EU, the UK or Australia. That gap between advertised leverage and permitted leverage is the clearest single indicator of which side of the perimeter a firm sits on, and it was visible on the homepage for years.
What the domain shows
| First capture in the Internet Archive | August 2019 |
| Captures held | 73 |
| Organic search traffic (Ahrefs) | ~8,300 visits a month |
More than a year after the wind-down was announced, the domain still draws thousands of visits a month. Those are people typing the name of a broker they used, and the page they reach is the notice above.
The site being up is the one useful thing left. It carries the withdrawal address, and it is the only reason anyone who missed the June 2025 email can still find out what happened. Domains lapse when nobody renews them, and when this one does, that route disappears with it.
If you still have a balance
Email the withdrawal address given in the notice, in writing, with your details. Account identifier, registered email, balance and the date. Keep the whole thread.
Do it now rather than later. The notice is over a year old, the portal is already gone, and the domain is the only remaining point of contact. Domains lapse.
Save your own records. Statements, deposit confirmations, transaction history, screenshots. You cannot pull them from the portal any more, so whatever you have locally or in old emails is what you have.
Check the deposit route. Card payments have a chargeback window that will almost certainly have expired for deposits made before mid-2025, but the rules vary by bank and country and it costs nothing to ask. Bank transfers and crypto do not offer this route at all.
Report it where you live, to the financial regulator and, if the sums justify it, the police. Firms outside a supervised perimeter end up on warning lists precisely because people report them.
Treat recovery offers as a second fraud. Anyone who contacts you promising to retrieve OspreyFX funds for an upfront payment is targeting the same list of victims.
What this case shows
OspreyFX did more than KOT4X did: it announced the wind-down, told clients to withdraw and kept a contact route open afterwards. That is a materially better closure than a site going dark overnight.
It is also the ceiling of what an unregulated firm can offer, and the ceiling is low. The announcement went out by email, so anyone who missed it missed everything. The portal went offline on the firm’s own schedule. The disclaimer places the consequences of all of that on the customer.
The leverage number was the signal
Worth separating out, because it applies to firms that are still trading rather than only to this one.
The homepage advertised 1:500 on cryptocurrencies. For a retail client of a firm regulated in the EU, the UK or Australia, the maximum on crypto CFDs is 2:1, on major currency pairs 30:1. There is no route by which a supervised entity offers 500:1 on crypto to a retail client; the rules do not contain an exception for it.
So the number is not merely aggressive pricing. It is a statement about which regulatory perimeter the firm sits outside, published voluntarily, in large type, on the front page. The same is true of any broker offering several hundred to one: the figure tells you the entity taking your account is not one of the supervised ones, whatever licences appear elsewhere on the site.
That inference costs nothing and needs no research. It was available to every OspreyFX customer on the day they signed up, and it pointed at exactly the risk that materialised: not that the trading would be rigged, but that when the firm stopped, nobody would be standing behind the balances. See leverage limits by regulator for the full table.
None of it would look the same under a regulator that requires client money to be segregated and a failure to be handled by an administrator. That difference is not visible while a broker is trading and paying withdrawals on time. It becomes the entire story on the day the firm stops, which is why we check the register first; see the methodology.
Sources
- OspreyFX — closure notice on ospreyfx.com
- Internet Archive — ospreyfx.com capture history
- ASIC Financial Services Licensee Register
- CySEC — register of Cypriot investment firms