Trading is a losing game: An audit of deceptive choice architecture in demo-mode Contract for Difference (CFD) trading apps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobile-based trading apps have made investing easier than ever before, but thisincludes enabling access to risky investments that many investors may not be able to tradesafely. The UK financial regulator thereby requires Contract for Difference (CFD) tradingapps to make disclosures such as, “89% of retail investor accounts lose money when tradingCFDs with this provider”. However, these disclosures might be counteracted by either theirsuboptimal implementation, or by other aspects of these apps’ deceptive choice architecture.Therefore, the present study audited choice architecture characteristics of demo-modes of the14 most-popular CFD trading apps in the UK. A content analysis found for example that 31.6per cent of risk warnings did not comply with the regulator’s standards, and that only 35.7 percent of apps contained risk warnings within the app’s main tabs. A thematic analysissuggested that apps’ educational resources could instil users with the hope of winning, byemphasising practice, strategies, and psychological mindset – instead of acknowledging luckas the predominant factor underlying CFD trading profitability. Overall, this study added toprevious research highlighting the similarities between certain high-risk investments andgambling, and added to the behavioural public policy literature on deceptive choicearchitecture.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".