CryptoIberian Review - is cryptoIberian.com scam or good forex broker?
CryptoIberian Review - is it scam or safe?
CryptoIberian is an offshore broker. Your money is not safe.
CryptoIberian is an offshore forex and CFD broker that offers the above account types. As its name suggests, this provider focuses on cryptocurrency trading and targets mainly European investors.
If you are wondering whether investing with CryptoIberian is a good idea, make sure you read this review first.
CryptoIberian provides leverage up to 1:500 for forex trading. Although leverage ratios that high hide risks of losing more than the initial deposit, we still consider it a good option, as such levels should be enough to suit all trading styles.
Another possible benefit of using this broker is its rich product portfolio. CryptoIberian offers a couple of conventional forex pairs and CFDs on precious metals, Brent, some stocks and indices. The main asset class in its portfolio, however, is cryptocurrency in the form of CFDs. The latter group includes Bitcoin, Ethereum Classic, Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash, Dash, EOS, Golem, IOTA, Neo, Doge Coin, Qtum, Tron, Monero, Paragon, Bytecoin, Bancor, OX and Cindicator.
Sadly, some major coins like Ethereum and Ripple are not available for trade at CryptoIberian. Anyway, some major reputable forex brokers also offer solid choice of cryptocurrency CFDs.
According to the information on its website, CryptoIberian is owned and operated by Outsource Your Marketing Now Ltd., an offshore company registered in St. Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG). Brokers in such offshore zones are not licensed, nor supervised by any authority, and many of them are engaged in fraudulent practices. That is why we advise traders to avoid offshore brokers as a general rule.
What is worse, we found out that that both the Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores (CNMV) in Spain and the Commissione Nazionale per le Societa e la Borsa (CONSOB) in Italy have issued warnings against Cryptoiberian. The broker obviously targets European investors, while it is not authorized to offer financial services on regulated markets such as the European Union.
Unlike the vast majority of forex brokers, CryptoIberian does not support the MetaTrader 4 (MT4) trading platform.
Judging by the above image of the broker's platform uploaded on its website, CryptoIberian's platform is web-based and oversimplified. It would better serve a binary options broker.
CryptoIberian has not mentioned any reference spreads, nor offers free testing service. Lack of essential information such as the cost of trading in a broker's website is always a worrisome sign. Most con-artists would not share such data, because some inconsistencies and irregularities might show up and expose the whole set-up.
This broker does not offer free demo accounts but managed account are available. This is a highly controversial practice which by definition has a great potential for a conflict of interest and therefore requires strict regulatory oversight.
We cannot recommend CryptoIberian for two main reasons: it is not regulated and not transparent about its offer. With no regulatory oversight we can't be certain about the company behind the broker and whether it will fulfill its obligation towards clients. Furthermore, there is not authority to turn to in case clients fall victim to a scam.
In order to avoid being scammed, you'd better only deal with entities holding licenses from reputable financial regulators like UK's FCA, or Cyprus' CySEC (in Europe). These regulatory agencies require compliance with a number of strict rules that give significant assurance for the security of the clients funds.
No news about CryptoIberian . Check back later.


text:
<?php defined('BASEPATH') OR exit('No direct script access allowed');

/*
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Site Name & Contact Data
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
$config['site_name'] = 'Site Name';
$config['contact_organization'] = 'Organization Name';
$config['contact_address'] = 'Milky Way, Solar System, Planet Earth, Sofia, BULGARIA';
$config['contact_phone'] = '+359 2 00 00 00';
$config['contact_fax'] = '';
$config['contact_email'] = 'my@organization.com';
$config['contact_first_name'] = '';     // Contact person, first name.
$config['contact_last_name'] = '';      // Contact person, last name.
$config['contact_web_site'] = DEFAULT_BASE_URL;
$config['contact_facebook'] = '';
$config['contact_twitter'] = '';
$config['contact_google_plus'] = '';
$config['contact_linkedin'] = '';
$config['contact_github'] = '';

// Here there are some optional contact information translations.
// The key suffix "_bg" is based on the language codes.
$config['contact_organization_bg'] = 'Име на организацията';
$config['contact_address_bg'] = 'България, София';
$config['contact_first_name_bg'] = '';
$config['contact_last_name_bg'] = '';

$config['contact_map'] = '
<i18n>ui_see_a_larger_map</i18n>';

/*
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Copyright Note by the Site's Owner
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
$config['copyright_note'] = 'Copyright © 2012 - {year} Ivan Tcholakov and other contributors. License: MIT. This page has been generated in {elapsed_time} seconds using {memory_usage} of memory.';

/*
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Default Metadata: Title, Description, and Keywords.
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
$config['default_title'] = 'Default title';
$config['default_description'] = 'Default description';
$config['default_keywords'] = 'Default keywords';

/*
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Automatic Email Messages
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/

// Turn on/off the mailer.
// See also the configuration file email.php for proper settings for the mailer.
$config['mailer_enabled'] = false;

// The email-address from which the platform sends automatic messages.
// Usually it should be registered within your e-mail server, expect
// sending e-mails from a fake address to be forbidden. So, this setting
// should match to the credential settings for the e-mail server, see
// the configuration file email.php.
$config['site_email'] = 'mailer@organization.com';

// E-mail addresses (receivers), where notification/confirmation messages
// are to be automatically sent.
$config['notification_email'] = $config['contact_email'];

// An e-mail address that receives copies of sent/received messages.
$config['cc_email'] = '';

/*
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Google Analytics Settings
|
| Also, see the file robots.txt on how to enable sitemap.xml.
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
$config['google_analytics_enabled'] = false;
$config['google_analytics_id'] = 'UA-XXXXX-X';  // Change UA-XXXXX-X to be your site's ID.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Ophioglossaceae is commonly known as the Adder;s Tongue Family. The Ophioglossaceae is a family from Ophioglossales Order, splits from Psilotopsida Class. It is a family in Pteridophyta or Lower Vascular Plants Division. The family consists of 13 genera and about 126 species.


Tim James: Does terroir matter?
A matter of wider interest emerged from my piece about the worrying state of the Stellenbosch Wine of Origin structure, prompted by a Dutch sommelier's excellent dissertation on the subject. I mentioned that the discussion about wards had not been derailed by questions about whether estates and their marketers want the damn things anyway. Not put off, a professional brandsman (?), Jeremy Sampson, asked in a comment: "So what?" Rather, he said provocatively, "put time and energy into reducing, not adding to, the fragmentation and building up the reputation of South African wine as a whole".
This is not a new debate, but I thought I'd make a few further observations. Firstly, two related to terroir (the physical givens of any vineyard or group of vineyards or larger area). One is that the effects of terroir differences demonstrably exist. Most famously in Burgundy, I suppose, where one winemaker will achieve very different results from different vineyards – but you can see it happening locally if you get to taste, for a related example, Hannes Storm's three pinots from different wards in the Hemel-en-Aarde.
Secondly, terroir is only a part of the truth about fine wine. As I wrote about some time ago, you can taste the wines made from the five vignerons with virtually identical blocks of the Clos St-Jacques vineyard in Burgundy, and they are very different in character. In what way, the sceptic could (and should) ask, is the terroir of that fine vineyard expressed?
There are undoubtedly those who think that situations like that reveal the terroir obsession to be at least partly nonsense. Some seem to think this covertly, or even unconsciously: Just about all Burgundy lovers are believers in terroir, but they tend to be even more devotedly believers in the different skills of vignerons. The different wines off Clos St Jacques consistently achieve radically different prices. Wine lovers are actually paying, it would seem, not for the terroir but for the viticulture and winemaking.
That debate will continue to rage. However, here is a simple, pragmatic response to Jeremy's "So what?" The majority of wine commentators are firm (theoretical) believers in terroir, as are many buyers of fine wine. If you want to attract the attention of the former and the dollars, pounds and euros of the latter, then greater attention to regional identity is the way to their hearts and wallets. And Jeremy's contrast between fragmentation and building the reputation of the whole is, surely, a false opposition. There is no doubt that the recent rise in the general standing of South African wine among important commentators has happened on the basis of the top wines and their improvement. And the majority of those wines are terroir wines, wines of origin, of "fragmentation" (many of them referencing the smallest allowed fragment, the vineyard). And whatever is done to improve the reputation of, and interest in, those top wines will be good for the South African brand as a whole.
But there is another answer to Jeremy, and a more important one, as it is not about image but about the fundamentals on which (I hope) image can be firmly built. Whatever the "truth" about terroir may be, I am convinced that believers in terroir make the finest wines. Just as believers in terroir get a deeper satisfaction from drinking the stuff. Having the structures in place to encourage both winemakers and winedrinkers is important.
Take the Hemel-en-Aarde. I believe that the local producers originally wanted just one ward for the whole area, but the Demarcation Committee, investigating the terroir, thought that three wards would be justified and meaningful, and that's what was legislated. Many people – winemakers and commentators – were doubtful, and worried about fragmentation at the expense of the area's reputation as a whole. But even in the short time that the wards have been in existence, fascinating differences are starting to emerge in the wines they produce. Nothing definitive yet, of course, that will take generations, but this "fragmentation" has surely contributed to quality and reputation, as well as a determination to express the truth of the landscape.
As for Stellenbosch, so much larger and more complex, the same thing could happen, building the interest of both wine lovers and the best producers. Incidentally, it should be noted that it's not an either/or matter on the label: "Stellenbosch" or some scarcely known ward name. Since 2013, a label may include both – and that is an important concession, and one that really should be taken up by more producers than it is now.
Last year saw the Stellenbosch Cabernet Collective founded. Whatever doubts one might have about the wisdom of focusing on varietal cabernet, one must hope that the Collective's work will see an enhanced perception of Stellenbosch's wines generally. If a meaningful understanding could be built, through the Collective's efforts, of the terroir-based differences in Stellenbosch cab, and the winemakers could be motivated to better learn how to express those differences – wow, what a great advance that would be. And a revised, terroir-based system of wards would be the most useful tool that wine lovers (makers and drinkers) could have.
Completely agree with you, Tim.
And any shake up of Stellenbosch Wards should start by removing altogether from Stellenbosch the wineries around the Schaapenberg/Sir Lowry's Pass. There are many differences, topography the most obvious one. The great wines being produced at Vergelegen, Morgenster, Waterkloof et al deserve to be acknowledged for their own terroir, which is certainly not that of Stellenbosch.
I ask that as a discussion about wards has now become his observations about terroir, an entirely different matter.
As for adding regions – absolutely.
Let's be clear, a ward is quite simply a predetermined demarcated geographical area. I decided to check with 'The Oxford Companion to Wine' (Jancis Robinson's tome) and could find no mention od a ward. Perhaps it is covered within another heading?
From this we learn that whilst some elements are fairly constant, others can change to varying degrees, a reason vintages will vary. Global warming is having an impact.
Spending a week working in Stellenbosch earlier this month left me with the distinct impression that younger drinkers, and the many overseas visitors, will drink just about anything, of which wine is but a small part. I am told that wines 'share of wallet', or if you prefer 'share of throat' is declining.
So Tim you fiddle with the wards, terroir is out of your control and some of us will focus on marketing South Africa's wonderful wines, its fascinating regions, its magical terroir and creating great iconic local brands that are relevant to the wine drinking world at large.
@Jeremy There is an obvious link between Wards and Terroir.
Fascinated by the staunch and varied opinions towards terroir, wards, regionality, topography and cartography relating to Brand South Africa Wine™.
France. Synonymous with wine. An association built over hundreds of years where terroir is the be all and end all. Specific styles and varietals are inextricably linked to their precise origin. And with good reason.
Argentina. Their international reputation is also based on regionality. That region: Argentina. The varietals: There's only one. Forget the fact that there are top Chardonnay's coming out of the Uco Valley, or Pinot from Patagonia. Steve from Essex is blissfully unaware. He just knows that his steak pairs nicely with a £5 Trapiche Malbec.
Of course, we are neither France nor Argentina. And that's exactly the point. Where we sit in relation ultimately depends on the many winemakers, co-op's, vineyards, organizations, marketers, WOSA's, PIWOSA's, Vinpro's and Vin not-so-pro's. And wouldn't you know it, they all have different agendas.
So, actually, how much does it really depend on the above "stakeholders"?
Punchdowns, pumpovers, free-flow, whole-bunch. They all have their place. And while the bureaucrats argue, there are brilliant people in our brilliant vineyards making leaps and bounds for South African wine.
Jeremy, I hardly think it is changing the topic. I geographical demarcation based on similarity in the factors you highlight as terroir is an easy way to identify distinct, fairly homogeneous wine growing and making areas. While I enjoy your shows on the radio and comments on this topic, I cannot but wonder why you're having a go at Tim for making a perfectly polite and reasonable case here. Is this a vested interest you'd like to disclose? My apologies if I'm making a leap too far.
Jeremy it doesn't take a genius to realise that each one of the 5 factors included in the definition of terroir your mention are very site specific and influenced by location. In fact they are the very reason that site is so important to terroir. Move 100 meters and each one of those can change.
Apologies Jeremy, read your comment again and realise the point you are making. I am not aware of how wards are determined or what vested interests there may be in terms of determining specific boundaries, but surely it makes sense to assume some sort of link between wards and terroir? Even if at this stage the link is not as strong as in France, for example. And surely having smaller demarcated wards or areas is not necessarily a bad thing in terms of being able to market a region in its entirety if it indicates a degree of maturity or accumulated knowledge with regards to vineyards, varietals etc?
Just to clarify some of the determinants when a ward is demarcated, the following from the Wine & Spirit Board's Wine of Origin document 2013.
clear influence on the character of the wine.
I know also, from chatting to former Demarcation Board member, Duimpie Bayly, that a sense of community among the inhabitants is also considered.
Even if the wards aren't perfect relflections of terroir – after all, we're not constrained by varieties, as they are in France – it does help winemakers in that particular ward to work together and focus on reflecting distinctive character in at least some varieties.


text:
369 Marlborough is located on the north side of Marlborough, between Hereford and Massachusetts Avenue, with 365 Marlborough to the east and 371 Marlborough to the west.
369 Marlborough was built in 1879-1880 by Vinal & Dodge, masons, for building contractor George Wheatland, Jr., for speculative sale. It was one of three contiguous houses (369-371-373 Marlborough) built at the same time and one of twelve contiguous houses (369-371-373-375-377-379-381-383-385-387-389-391 Marlborough) built for George Wheatland, Jr., in 1879-1881. He is shown as the owner of 369-371-373 Marlborough on the original building permit application for the three houses, dated December 4, 1879 (one application for three houses).
The houses were built in three groups: three at 369-371-373 Marlborough in 1879-1880, three at 375-377-379 Marlborough in 1880, and six at 381-383-385-387-389-391 Marlborough in 1880-1881. The six at 369-379 Marlborough are of the same design, and the six at 381-391 Marlborough also are of the same design as each other and quite similar to the six at 369-379 Marlborough.
The two applications for the six houses at 369-379 Marlborough do not identify the architect. However, the application for the six houses at 381-391 Marlborough indicates that the architect was Obed F. Smith and, given the similar style, it appears likely that he also was the architect for the earlier houses. In addition, the application for 369-373 Marlborough indicates that the plans are the same as for 358–360 Marlborough, two of a group of eight houses at 348-362 Marlborough built for George Wheatland, Jr., at about the same time. The applications for those houses also do not name the architect, but are attributed to Obed F. Smith based on the final building inspection reports for 354-356 Marlborough.
George Wheatland, Jr., purchased the land for the twelve houses at 369-391 Marlborough through two transactions. He purchased the eastern 200 feet on May 10, 1872, from Daniel Davies, part of a larger parcel Daniel Davies had purchased from the Boston Water Power Company on June 12, 1868. George Wheatland, Jr., subsequently transferred two-thirds interest to William Dudley Pickman and William Pickering Fay under a trust agreement and the remaining one-third to his father, George Wheatland, Sr., of Salem. The land remained vacant for the next seven years.
On October 9, 1879, George Wheatland, Jr., purchased the land to the west, with a 80.58 foot frontage, from Grenville T. W. Braman, and subsequently transferred the lot to his father. The 80.58 foot parcel originally had been intersected by Parker Street, a 60 foot wide street located on top of the Cross Dam, which ran southwest from Beacon at approximately a 45 degree angle, intersecting the north side of Marlborough at a point about 355 feet west of Hereford. Grenville Braman had purchased the eastern portion of the lot from Daniel Davies on October 1, 1872, a triangular lot bounded on the west by Parker Street. In the late 1870s, Parker Street was abandoned and, through a series of transactions, Grenville Braman purchased the land under the roadway, another triangular parcel which he combined with the first to create the rectangular lot he then sold to George Wheatland, Jr.
Click here for an index to the deeds for 369 Marlborough, and click here for further information on the land on the north side of Marlborough between Hereford and Massachusetts Avenue.
George Wheatland, Jr., subsequently built the twelve houses at 369-391 Marlborough on 276 feet of the combined 280.58 foot parcel, selling the 4 feet to the east and the 0.58 feet to the west to others. As the houses were completed, William D. Pickman and the estate of William P. Fay (who had died in March of 1879) transferred their two-thirds interest to George Wheatland, Sr. He subsequently sold the houses to individual purchasers.
On October 20, 1880, 369 Marlborough was purchased from George Wheatland, Sr., by Barney Cory, a wine importer. He and his wife, Eliza Ann Bell (Glynn) Cory, lived at 8 Arlington.
Barney Cory acquired the property to be the home of his daughter and future son-in-law, Jennie Louise Cory and Edward Royall Tyler. They married in January of 1881 and made 369 Marlborough their home. He was a tea broker. Prior to their marriage, he had lived at 353 Beacon with his parents, John Tyler, Jr., and Martha Willis (Alger) Tyler.
Barney Cory died in August of 1882, and Jennie Louise (Cory) Tyler and her brother, Charles Barney Cory, each inherited a 50 percent undivided interest in 369 Marlborough, 8 Arlington, and several other properties. On January 13, 1883, Jennie Louise Tyler established a trust to hold her properties, with Otis Everett Weld and Francis Clarke Welch as trustees.
The Tylers lived at 369 Marlborough during the 1885-1886 season, but moved thereafter to a new home they had built at 316 Beacon.
369 Marlborough continued to be owned by the trust established by Jennie Tyler and by her brother, Charles. On May 8, 1889, the trust transferred its half interest in the property to Edward and Jennie Tyler, and they transferred it to a new trust for their benefit and the benefit of their children, with the same trustees. Jennie Tyler died in May of 1892 in Nice, France.
On October 1, 1892, Charles Cory transferred his half interest in 369 Marlborough, 8 Arlington, and several other properties to the Tylers' trust (at the same time, the trust transferred its half interest in several other properties to him). The Tylers' trust continued to own 369 Marlborough until 1946.
By the 1886-1887 winter season, 369 Marlborough was the home of Charles Fox Guild and his wife, Ellen (Nellie) Mary (Whyte) Guild. They previously had lived in Charlestown, where he was Paymaster (and later Pay Inspector) at the Naval Yard. They continued to live at 369 Marlborough during the 1887-1888 season, but moved thereafter to 5 St. John.
By the 1888-1889 winter season, 369 Marlborough was the home of leather merchant Henry Harrison Proctor and his wife, Ellen Augusta (Perkins) Proctor. They previously had lived at the Norfolk House hotel.
The Proctors' sons, Francis Ingersoll Proctor and Charles Anderson Proctor, lived with them. Francis Proctor was a physician and ophthalmologist, and maintained his office at 176 Charles. He married in December of 1891 to Mary L. (Stevens) Putnam, the former wife of Henry W. Putnam. After their marriage they moved to 259 Beacon, where he also moved his medical office.
Charles Proctor continued to live with his parents and worked in his father's leather business.
By 1900, the Proctors had been joined by Ellen Proctor's sister, Sarah Elizabeth (Perkins) Stimpson, the widow of Thomas M. Stimpson, who had died in September of 1898. He had been a lawyer in Peabody.
Henry and Ellen Proctor, Charles Proctor, and Sarah Stimpson continued to live at 369 Marlborough until mid-to-late 1900, when they moved to 282 Commonwealth.
After they moved, 369 Marlborough became the home of their son and daughter-in-law, Francis and Mary (Stevens) Putnam Proctor. In 1898, they had lived in an apartment at Haddon Hall at 282 Berkeley; he continued to maintain his medical office at 259 Beacon.
Francis and Mary Proctor continued to live at 369 Marlborough during the 1901-1902 winter season, but moved thereafter to an apartment at The Charlesgate at 535 Beacon. By 1904, they lived in an apartment at 384 Commonwealth and he maintained his office at 397 Marlborough.
By the 1902-1903 winter season, 369 Marlborough was the home of real estate broker Frank Thomas Vose and his wife, Dora (Bennett) Vose. They previously had lived at 93 Sedgwick. They continued to live at 369 Marlborough during the 1908-1909 season, but moved thereafter to 193 Bay State Road.
By the 1910-1911 winter season, 369 Marlborough was the home of iron manufacturer Elmer F. Smith and his wife Delia P. (Robinson) Smith. They previously had lived in Marion, where they continued to maintain a home.
They continued to live at 369 Marlborough during the 1915-1916 season, but moved thereafter to 124 Bay State Road. .
By the 1917-1918 winter season, it was the home of attorney William Dall Turner and his wife, Mabel (Williams) Turner. They previously had lived in Brookline. They continued to live at 369 Marlborough during the 1919-1920 season, but then moved back to Brookline.
By the 1921-1922 winter season, it was the Boston home of Loris Almy Miller, a bond broker, and his wife Madeleine (Tinkham) Miller. They previously had lived in Winchester and, before that, in Chicago, where they continued to maintain a home.
On January 24, 1924, the basement of the house was damaged by a fire caused by defective wiring.
In about 1937, Loris Miller moved to Chicago. Madeleine Miller continued to live at 369 Marlborough, but was enumerated with him in the 1940 US Census, living with him in Chicago with his mother, Matilda (Smith) Miller, the widow of Charles Kingsbury Miller, who had died in January of 1939.
Madeleine Miller continued to also maintain her residence at 369 Marlborough and, from about 1940, was joined there by her unmarried brother, George Holden Tinkham. He previously had lived at 326 Commonwealth. He was a lawyer and US Congressman, and also maintained a home in Washington DC. He did not seek reelection in 1942, and retired from legal practice at about that time.
By the early 1940s, Loris and Madeleine Miller had permanently separated. Her brother continued to live with her at 369 Marlborough. She also was joined by her unmarried daughter, Eleanor Almy Miller, a teacher. She previously had lived in Connecticut.
On February 28, 1946, Madeleine Miller purchased 369 Marlborough from E. Sohier Welch and Thomas Motley, successor trustees of the Tylers' trust (Edward R. Tyler had died in January of 1942 in Wales).
George Tinkham continued to live at 369 Marlborough until his death in August of 1956.
Eleanor Miller married that same year to Albert F. Norris, a teacher and foundry operator. After their marriage, they lived in Dorchester and Norwell.
Madeleine Miller continued to live at 369 Marlborough until her death in March of 1964.
On November 24, 1965, 369 Marlborough was purchased from the estate of Madeleine Miller by Dr. Vasilios Poulos, a radiologist, and his wife, Flora Poulos. On August 10, 2008, they transferred the property into his name as trustee of the Vasilios Poulos Revocable Intervivos Trust.
Vasilios Poulos died in December of 2018, and on August 22, 2019, Flora Poulos, as successor trustee of the Vasilios Poulos Revocable Intervivos Trust, transferred the property into her own name and then to herself as trustee of the Flora Poulos Revocable Intervivos Trust.
369 Marlborough continued to be assessed as a single-family dwelling in 2020.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl