In recent months, we have seen an increasing number of platforms offering what appears to be a simple and easy way to earn money — by completing daily tasks within an application, most commonly through the so-called “click a button” model.
One of the platforms that has recently attracted attention is XP.
At first glance, the way these systems operate seems simple and convincing. Users are presented with so-called “trading signals,” tasks, or transactions that they are required to confirm with a single click, while being told that this activity is part of a trading process that generates profits.
However, when this model is examined more closely, one very simple but important question arises — if this is real trading on financial markets, why would thousands of ordinary users need to manually click a button in order for trades to be executed?
The answer is often straightforward: because, in many cases, no real trading is taking place at all.
In platforms of this kind, the user’s “activity” serves primarily as a psychological mechanism. It creates the impression that the user is actively participating in generating profits, that their effort or engagement is directly producing returns, and that the system operates because of their activity.
In reality, in many of these cases, the system functions according to a classic Ponzi model — funds from new participants are used to pay earlier participants, creating the illusion of profitability and stability.
What is particularly concerning is that XP, based on publicly available information, does not provide clear details regarding its ownership structure, management, or the individuals behind its operations. This lack of transparency is one of the strongest warning signs in such models.
Additionally, these systems often include referral structures, rewarding users for bringing in new participants. This further increases the inflow of funds and helps the system continue operating for a certain period of time.
However, the mathematics behind such models is unforgiving — at some point, the inflow of new funds slows down, withdrawal requests increase, and the system can no longer sustain the appearance of stability.
This is usually when the first serious problems begin.
In practice, users often first encounter delayed withdrawals, additional verification requests, account restrictions, or demands for extra payments under various explanations. These are often presented as “security checks,” “tax obligations,” “activation fees,” or technical issues.
What is especially important to understand is that in many cases, this final phase often includes an additional attempt to extract more money from existing users, through promises that withdrawals will be processed once one more payment is made.
Experience from previous years shows that platforms of this kind rarely operate for long. The most common outcome is that the application is shut down, communication disappears, and operations stop entirely, leaving most participants without any realistic possibility of recovering their funds.
It is important to understand that these models are not new. They simply change their name, visual identity, and presentation style, while the underlying structure remains the same.
When profits depend primarily on new deposits rather than on real and verifiable economic activity, the risk of losing funds becomes extremely high.
For that reason, it is important to recognize these patterns early and avoid making financial decisions based on promises of quick and easy profits.
Kind regards,
Attorney Zoran Miljaković