Sonic AI is being promoted as a way to copy a gold trading strategy through an arrangement involving AITech, COPYX and brokerage platform TAG Markets. But an investigation published by Danny de Hek has raised questions about the opportunity’s advertised performance, amplified trading exposure, affiliate incentives and corporate transparency.
The report examines promotional material associated with Vitaliy Dubinin and Paulo Barroso, alongside a compensation structure that reportedly rewards affiliates across ten levels. Separately, official warnings from financial regulators in Austria and Luxembourg confirm that TAG Markets lacked authorisation for specified financial services in those jurisdictions when the warnings were issued.
These findings warrant scrutiny, but they do not establish that Sonic AI is a Ponzi scheme or that TAG Markets has committed fraud. The available material supports a closer examination of what customers are being promised, how promoters are paid and which entities are responsible for the service.
According to de Hek’s account, Sonic AI is presented as a strategy focused on XAU/USD, the trading pair for gold against the US dollar. AITech is described as providing technology and affiliate infrastructure, COPYX as copying trades, and TAG Markets as handling brokerage accounts and execution.
That arrangement places several brands between the customer and the underlying trading activity. De Hek reports that he could not clearly establish AITech’s legal identity, ownership and management from the material he examined. His findings raise questions about accountability, although an inability to identify ownership from public material does not itself establish wrongdoing.
The report also questions how artificial intelligence features in the strategy. De Hek describes a presentation stating that people make the trading decisions, despite the AI branding. Another presentation reportedly referred to three experienced German traders, whose identities and professional backgrounds he said he had not independently verified.
This leaves a practical question about the product: which decisions are automated, which depend on human traders, and who is responsible for managing risk?
Performance claims are another focus. De Hek reports that Barroso’s promotional website advertised 18 consecutive profitable months, an 80% win rate and drawdown below 1%, referring visitors to Myfxbook verification. These are historical marketing claims recorded in the report, rather than independently confirmed customer results.
De Hek argues that a master account’s trading record cannot, on its own, demonstrate that every customer receives equivalent execution, experiences the same losses or can withdraw funds as represented. The distinction matters because the advertised strategy is also connected to claims of substantially increased trading exposure.
Promotional examples described in the report advertise 24X amplification, presenting a $10,000 deposit as providing $240,000 in trading exposure. This describes increased exposure, not a cash gain of $230,000. According to the report, Sonic’s own material acknowledges that both gains and losses can be amplified.
The consequences for a customer would depend on the actual contract, position sizes, margin requirements and rules for closing losing positions. The screenshots do not establish those mechanics sufficiently to calculate a reliable customer loss scenario. De Hek also raises unresolved questions about a “Community Token” mentioned in the amplification material, including its issuer, legal status and role in the arrangement.
Alongside the trading proposition sits an extensive affiliate programme. According to the compensation material described by de Hek, customers receive 70% of profits, strategy developers receive 5%, and the remaining 25% is allocated across ten affiliate levels, at 2.5% per level.
The report describes additional payments linked to trading volume and new deposits. It says deposit-based rewards range from 1% at an entry threshold of $10,000 in direct monthly deposits to 5% at a threshold of $1 million in new monthly deposits, subject to qualification rules.
Advertised incentives reportedly include travel rewards, Rolex watches and a $1.2 million family home at the highest qualifying level. De Hek explicitly states that he had not seen evidence confirming delivery of those major rewards.
As described, the plan creates incentives to attract deposits and expand an affiliate network alongside promoting trading performance. That raises questions about potential conflicts between a promoter’s compensation and a customer’s interests. It does not, by itself, demonstrate that new deposits fund investment returns.
The clearest independently confirmed concerns relate to regulatory authorisation. On 20 February 2026, Austria’s Financial Market Authority issued a warning naming TAG Markets, T.M. Financial Ltd and TAG Markets Ltd. It stated that the provider was not authorised to conduct securities transactions requiring a licence in Austria, including executing orders for clients.
On 10 June 2026, Luxembourg’s CSSF issued a separate warning concerning tagmarkets.com. It stated that the named entities were not supervised by the CSSF and had no authorisation to provide investment or other financial services in or from Luxembourg.
TAG Markets’ published disclosures state that its website is operated by T.M. Financials Ltd in Mauritius and cite Investment Dealer licence GB21026474. The company also publishes territorial restrictions, including the United States. Its claim to Mauritius regulation should be distinguished from the specific authorisation issues identified by European regulators.
De Hek reports a potential mismatch between those restrictions and affiliate material discussing access for American customers. However, he also acknowledges that he had not established whether TAG Markets created or approved every affiliate statement. The supplied material contains no direct responses to his findings from Sonic AI, AITech, Dubinin or Barroso.
The unresolved issue is whether the wider operation can substantiate its sales proposition with clear corporate information, contractual terms and independently verifiable customer outcomes. A trading chart can help explain reported performance. It cannot answer every question about ownership, compensation, regulatory permissions and the treatment of customers’ money.
Based on the supplied screenshots of Danny de Hek’s investigation, with regulatory warnings checked against official publications. Promotional figures and findings attributed to de Hek have not been independently audited for this article.
