1v1 Institutional Counterparty Comparison
FidelisCM vs Polkadot: Regulation, 6D Ratings & Safety Audit
Deterministic head-to-head benchmarking of FidelisCM (FidelisCM) and Polkadot (Polkadot) across primary regulatory filings, statutory Tier-1 authorisations, 6-Dimension compliance scores, execution software, and warning exposure.
Coverage: Institutions licensed in offshore financial centres
Polkadot outranks FidelisCM by +5.0 pts in composite 6D scoring (6.0 vs 1.0)
On supervisory breadth, FidelisCM holds 0 active regulated licence(s) (0 Tier-1) out of 1 total filings and 0 warning count(s), whereas Polkadot holds 0 active regulated licence(s) (0 Tier-1) out of 0 total filings and 0 warning count(s). Allocators should inspect the individual licence numbers and contracting legal entities below before onboarding.
6-Dimension Quantitative Scorecard Comparison
Head-to-head breakdown across all 6 proprietary evaluation dimensions (0.0–10.0 scale).
| Evaluation Dimension | Methodology Weight | FidelisCM | Polkadot | Score Delta | Dimension Leader |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Composite 6D Score | 100% Composite | 1.0 | 6.0 | +5.0 | Polkadot |
| Regulatory & Licensing Integrity (riskScore) | 30% Weight | 1.0 | 6.0 | +5.0 | Polkadot |
| Execution & Software Infrastructure (industryScore) | 20% Weight | 1.0 | 3.0 | +2.0 | Polkadot |
| User Reputation & Complaint Telemetry (userScore) | 20% Weight | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
| Institutional Brand Longevity (brandScore) | 15% Weight | 1.0 | 6.0 | +5.0 | Polkadot |
| Global Market Influence & Footprint (influenceScore) | 15% Weight | 1.0 | 6.0 | +5.0 | Polkadot |
Visual Architecture Benchmark: FidelisCM vs Polkadot
Vector comparison exhibit generated from live supervisory snapshot metrics.
Regulatory Standing, Entity & Platform Comparison
Structural comparison of supervisory authorisations, domicile, execution terminals, and risk telemetry.
| Audit Attribute | FidelisCM | Polkadot |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Legal Name | FidelisCM | Polkadot |
| Source Risk Classification | Risk level not supplied | Risk level not supplied |
| Active Regulated / Total Filings | 0 regulated / 1 total (0 Tier-1) | 0 regulated / 0 total (0 Tier-1) |
| Recorded Certificate Numbers | None on file | |
| Registered Domicile / Address | 52 Cybercity, 8th Floor, Ebene Tower,, Ebene | International |
| Offered Asset Classes & Services | Multi-asset financial services | Multi-asset financial services |
| Execution Software & Terminals | MT4 | Proprietary / Web Platform |
| Supported Client Languages | Arabic, Chinese, English, Russian | English |
| Warning / Exposure Count | 0 recorded warning(s) | 0 recorded warning(s) |
| Specialized Sub-Page Audits |
Related 1v1 Institutional Comparisons
Compare FidelisCM and Polkadot against other regulated peers in our institutions licensed in offshore financial centres slice.
Frequently Asked Questions: FidelisCM vs Polkadot
Deterministic counterparty comparison answers derived from supervisory records.
Which institution has stronger regulatory oversight: FidelisCM or Polkadot?
Both FidelisCM and Polkadot hold 0 regulated licence record(s) in our dataset. Specifically, FidelisCM maintains 1 total recorded filing(s) (SVG FSA) with 0 warning flag(s), whereas Polkadot maintains 0 recorded filing(s) (none on file) with 0 warning flag(s). Always confirm the specific subsidiary onboarding your account on the official regulator register.
How do the 6D quantitative compliance scores compare between FidelisCM and Polkadot?
In Sovereign Tax Atlas's 6-Dimension scoring matrix (0.0–10.0 scale), FidelisCM records an Overall Score of 1.0 (Risk & Licensing: 1.0, Brand: 1.0, Market Influence: 1.0, User Reputation: 0.0, Execution & Software: 1.0), compared with Polkadot at 6.0 Overall (Risk & Licensing: 6.0, Brand: 6.0, Market Influence: 6.0, User Reputation: 0.0, Execution & Software: 3.0).
How do FidelisCM and Polkadot differ in trading platforms and asset classes?
FidelisCM lists general financial services with execution software [MT4], while Polkadot lists general financial services with execution software [proprietary/web execution]. Counterparties should verify FIX/API connectivity, server routing topology, and negative balance protection per entity.
Which counterparty carries lower regulatory warning and complaint exposure: FidelisCM or Polkadot?
FidelisCM carries a "Risk level not supplied" classification with 0 warning/exposure count(s) and 0 user comment(s), while Polkadot carries a "Risk level not supplied" classification with 0 warning/exposure count(s) and 0 user comment(s).
Structured against supervisory register snapshots and public regulatory filings. Verify your contracting legal entity and current authorisation status directly on the issuing regulator’s official register before transacting.