QUANTAIRA: Where Is the Proof That the AI Trading System Actually Makes Money?

QUANTAIRA is being promoted as an AI-powered automated trading platform, with EndoTech technology at its core. Impressive trading results have been discussed, and potential members are being encouraged to connect their exchange accounts. But where is the independently verifiable evidence that the system consistently makes money?

AI trading is an attractive proposition.

Imagine having an automated system monitoring the markets, analysing price movements, identifying opportunities and executing trades without requiring you to sit in front of a screen all day.

If it works, it could be valuable.

But there is one question that matters more than the technology, the presentations, the partnerships or the marketing:

Does the trading system actually make money, after all costs and losses, in real accounts over a meaningful period?

Not in a backtest.

Not in a presentation.

Not in a carefully selected chart.

Not in a theoretical projection.

In real trading accounts, with real money, real execution costs and real withdrawals.

That is the evidence prospective QUANTAIRA members should be looking for.

I have examined the publicly available information about QUANTAIRA and its connection with EndoTech. There are claims of impressive historical performance, descriptions of AI technology and references to live trading accounts.

There is also a significant gap between what is being claimed and what an independent investor can actually verify.

This article examines that gap.

1. What exactly is QUANTAIRA offering?

QUANTAIRA is being promoted as an automated trading ecosystem powered by EndoTech technology and connected to CoinZoom exchange accounts.

The proposed arrangement is that members retain control of their funds in their own exchange accounts while the automated system executes trades through an account connection.

The attraction is understandable.

Rather than transferring money to an unfamiliar investment company, members are told they can retain custody of their assets and allow the technology to trade for them.

But there are two separate questions here:

1. Are the funds held in the member’s own exchange account?
2. Does the trading system generate consistent, positive returns?

The first concerns custody and access to funds.

The second concerns trading performance.

Even if the custody arrangement works exactly as described, it does not establish that the AI makes money.

An automated system can have permission to trade an account and still lose money. It can execute trades correctly and still produce poor results. It can operate without leverage and still experience substantial losses.

Keeping control of your money is not the same as protecting its value.

That is the starting point for any serious assessment.

2. EndoTech says its AI has a trading track record

EndoTech is not simply an unknown name appearing in QUANTAIRA marketing.

The company has publicly described its automated cryptocurrency trading technology, including its AI financial modular agents and its EventRadar market intelligence system.

In an article published in August 2025, EndoTech claimed that its system outperformed the broader cryptocurrency market between 1 May and 1 August 2025.

The company stated that the results came from live, real-money accounts rather than backtesting or simulation.

It also said that every trade shown in its performance charts corresponded to trades executed in real accounts connected to its platform.

That is a claim worth examining.

If the results genuinely came from live accounts, they could provide useful evidence of the system’s capabilities.

But there are important questions.

• Who independently verified the accounts?
• Were the results checked by an external auditor?
• Can the complete exchange transaction histories be examined?
• Were all participating accounts included, including unsuccessful ones?
• Were results calculated after trading fees, spreads and slippage?
• What was the maximum drawdown?
• How did the strategies perform during falling or sideways markets?

EndoTech’s own statement that its results are verifiable is not the same as independent verification.

A company publishing its own performance figures is providing information about its own product. That information may be accurate, but it still needs to be examined and independently corroborated.

3. The 865% return and 82.21% win rate claim

One of the most striking figures associated with the QUANTAIRA launch presentation is a reported historical return of 865%, accompanied by an 82.21% win rate.

The figures were discussed in an October 2026 presentation featuring EndoTech’s technology.

An account of that presentation reports that the figures covered a period of approximately eight years and nine months, with returns calculated using fixed capital rather than compounding.

These are extraordinary numbers.

If accurate, they would certainly deserve serious attention.

But extraordinary claims require particularly strong evidence.

There are several things a prospective member needs to understand before accepting these figures.

What does an 865% return actually mean?

An 865% cumulative return means that an initial amount would have increased by 8.65 times its original value in profit, leaving the account worth 9.65 times its starting value, assuming the stated calculation is accurate and no withdrawals or other adjustments change the result.

However, the figure is not meaningful without knowing precisely how it was calculated.

Was it:

• A live account return?
• A model portfolio?
• A reconstructed trading history?
• A backtest using historical market data?
• A composite of several strategies?
• A result calculated before or after fees?

These are very different things.

A strategy can produce an impressive historical result in a simulation and perform very differently when real money is exposed to market conditions.

The underlying records matter.

What does an 82.21% win rate mean?

An 82.21% win rate sounds impressive, but win rate alone tells us very little about profitability.

Consider a hypothetical trading system:

• It wins 82 out of every 100 trades.
• Its average winning trade makes £10.
• Its average losing trade loses £60.

The result would be:

• 82 winning trades: £820 profit.
• 18 losing trades: £1,080 loss.
• Overall result: £260 loss.

The system wins most of its trades but loses money overall.

This is why the average winning trade, average losing trade, risk-to-reward ratio and total trading costs are essential.

A high win rate is not proof of a profitable system.

4. Where are the complete trading records?

This is where the investigation becomes more important.

A credible automated trading system should be able to demonstrate its performance through a complete, time-stamped trading history.

Ideally, that history should be independently verifiable against the exchange records.

I would expect to see:

• Every trade opened and closed.
• The date and time of each transaction.
• The instrument traded.
• Entry and exit prices.
• Position size.
• Realised profit or loss.
• Trading fees.
• Slippage.
• Deposits and withdrawals.
• Open positions and unrealised losses.
• Account equity over time.

Why is this necessary?

Because a performance chart can tell only part of the story.

It might show a rising balance while hiding significant drawdowns. It might show winning trades without showing losing positions that remain open. It might display gross profits before fees. It might represent one successful strategy rather than the complete range of strategies offered.

A complete trading history allows someone to reconstruct the result rather than simply accept the published figure.

I have not established that QUANTAIRA currently provides prospective members with a complete, independently audited record of its own live trading performance.

That is a significant limitation.

5. EndoTech’s public performance information: what does it prove?

EndoTech has published material describing its trading technology and historical performance.

It has also provided a public strategy page intended to show trading strategies and their histories.

That is a positive step towards transparency.

However, there is an important qualification.

The strategy page carries a prominent warning about the limitations of hypothetical performance results. It explains that hypothetical results may differ significantly from the results achieved by an actual trading programme.

This matters because prospective users need to know precisely which figures represent actual executed trades and which represent modelled or hypothetical performance.

EndoTech’s August 2025 article describes its May–August results as coming from real-money accounts.

But the presence of hypothetical-performance warnings in its published strategy material means the status of each performance series needs to be made clear.

I would want EndoTech to identify, strategy by strategy:

1. Which records are live-money results.
2. Which are simulated or hypothetical.
3. Which are backtested.
4. Which accounts generated the results.
5. Whether the figures have been independently verified.

The point is not to dismiss EndoTech’s claims.

The point is that a prospective QUANTAIRA user should not have to guess which numbers represent real trading performance.

6. Has QUANTAIRA itself demonstrated profitable live trading?

This is an important distinction.

EndoTech’s historical trading claims are not automatically proof of QUANTAIRA’s performance.

QUANTAIRA is a new platform and the public announcements around November 2026 described quality assurance testing, pre-registration and preparations for an official launch in 2027.

That means there is a difference between:

• EndoTech’s previous trading history.
• The specific strategy selected for QUANTAIRA.
• The trading system actually made available to QUANTAIRA members.
• The results achieved by members after connecting their accounts.

These should not be treated as interchangeable.

Even if EndoTech has operated profitable strategies in the past, it does not follow that every strategy it supplies will be profitable.

A new platform may use a different configuration, different risk settings, different instruments or different execution arrangements.

The QUANTAIRA beta strategy has been described as a long-only spot cryptocurrency strategy without leverage.

That may reduce certain risks associated with leveraged trading, but it does not eliminate the possibility of losses.

If the cryptocurrency market falls substantially, a long-only strategy can still lose money.

The question is whether the specific strategy being offered to QUANTAIRA members has demonstrated positive results under real market conditions.

I have not found a complete, independently verified QUANTAIRA member trading record that answers that question.

7. What about the AI technology itself?

There is a tendency in AI trading promotions to focus heavily on the technology.

We hear about:

• AI agents.
• Machine learning.
• Market intelligence.
• Predictive analytics.
• Automated execution.
• Real-time market monitoring.
• Risk management algorithms.

These technologies can be useful.

Professional trading firms have used quantitative models and automated execution systems for many years.

But the presence of AI does not establish a trading advantage.

An AI system is only as useful as its underlying strategy, data, execution and risk management.

It must be able to identify opportunities that generate positive returns after costs.

It must also cope with changing market conditions.

A strategy that works during a strong cryptocurrency bull market may struggle during a prolonged bear market. A model that performs well on historical data may fail when market behaviour changes.

The real test is not how sophisticated the technology sounds.

It is how it performs when the market becomes difficult.

The question is not whether the system uses AI. The question is whether the AI produces a measurable and repeatable trading advantage.

8. What evidence would convince me?

I would not expect QUANTAIRA to reveal its proprietary algorithms or disclose every technical detail of its trading system.

That is not necessary.

A company can protect its intellectual property while still providing convincing evidence of trading performance.

Here is what I would like to see.

A. Independently verified live trading results

At least 12 months of continuous live-money performance would be a useful starting point, although a longer record covering different market conditions would be better.

The results should be independently checked against exchange records.

B. Complete performance statistics

The following should be published for each strategy:

Performance measure	Why it matters
Total net return	Shows overall profit or loss after costs
Annualised return	Allows comparison over time
Maximum drawdown	Shows the worst decline in account value
Win rate	Shows the proportion of profitable trades
Average win/loss	Shows the size of gains relative to losses
Profit factor	Compares gross profits with gross losses
Number of trades	Helps establish statistical relevance
Fees and slippage	Shows the real cost of trading
Monthly performance	Reveals consistency and difficult periods

A system making 20% annually with a 10% maximum drawdown may be more attractive than one making 100% with a 70% drawdown.

The return figure alone is not enough.

C. Results from ordinary members’ accounts

I would also like to see evidence from a representative sample of actual QUANTAIRA users.

Not just the best-performing account.

Not just a demonstration account.

Not just a screenshot from someone who has made money.

A representative sample should include:

• Profitable accounts.
• Losing accounts.
• Accounts with withdrawals.
• Accounts with different starting balances.
• Accounts that experienced substantial drawdowns.

This would help establish what ordinary members can realistically expect.

D. Evidence of withdrawals

A profitable trading dashboard is one thing.

Being able to withdraw realised profits is another.

I would want to see independently verifiable evidence that members can withdraw funds and that the reported profits are reflected in their actual exchange balances.

This is particularly important where marketing material describes the opportunity as a source of recurring or passive income.

E. Performance during difficult markets

A strategy should not be judged only by how it performs when cryptocurrency prices are rising.

I would want to see its behaviour during:

• Prolonged bear markets.
• Sharp market corrections.
• High-volatility events.
• Sudden liquidity shortages.
• Periods of sideways price action.

The ability to control losses is just as important as the ability to generate profits.

9. Does keeping funds in your own exchange account solve the problem?

It is a useful feature if implemented correctly.

The proposed QUANTAIRA model is based on members retaining custody of their funds in their own exchange accounts, with trading executed through an authorised account connection.

That may reduce the risk of a platform directly taking custody of customer assets.

But it does not remove trading risk.

If the AI makes a series of poor decisions, the account can lose money even though the money never leaves the exchange.

There are also questions about the permissions granted to the trading connection.

Members should understand whether the API connection permits withdrawals, how access can be revoked, what happens if the connection is compromised and who is responsible for unauthorised activity.

Most importantly, the exchange account balance can fall because of trading losses.

Your money can remain in your own account and still be lost through trading.

That point should be understood before anyone connects an account.

10. The performance fee raises another question

QUANTAIRA promotional material has referred to a performance fee and community rewards funded from trading-related income.

This raises a further issue.

If the system generates profits, a performance fee may be charged. If it generates losses, the member may still have to bear those losses.

The exact contractual arrangements need to be clear.

For example:

• Is the performance fee charged only on net realised profits?
• Is there a high-water mark?
• Are previous losses recovered before another performance fee is charged?
• Are fees calculated separately for each member?
• Are trading costs deducted first?
• Can the fee structure change?

A high-water mark is particularly important.

Without one, a system could potentially charge a performance fee on new gains without first recovering losses suffered during an earlier period.

Members should know precisely how this works.

A profitable trading system should not be assessed solely by its gross returns. The money left in the member’s account after losses, fees and charges is what matters.

11. What are we actually being asked to believe?

When you put the available information together, the picture is mixed.

There is a named technology provider with a published description of its AI trading systems.

There are historical performance claims.

There are references to live accounts and public strategy records.

There are also striking historical figures reported from the QUANTAIRA launch presentation.

But there are still unanswered questions about independent verification, the exact status of the performance records and the performance of the specific strategy being offered through QUANTAIRA.

I would not describe the available information as proof that the system cannot make money.

That would be unfair.

Equally, I would not describe it as sufficient proof that QUANTAIRA members can expect to make money.

That would go too far in the other direction.

The evidence needs to be stronger than that.

12. The questions I would put directly to QUANTAIRA and EndoTech

I would like to see clear answers to the following questions:

1. Can you publish the complete trading history behind the reported 865% return?
2. Was that result generated by real-money accounts or a backtested or simulated strategy?
3. Who independently verified the 865% return and the 82.21% win rate?
4. Can the underlying transactions be reconciled against exchange records?
5. What was the maximum drawdown during the period?
6. What were the average winning and losing trades?
7. Were all trading fees, spreads, slippage and other costs included?
8. Were there any losing strategies or accounts excluded from the published results?
9. How does the QUANTAIRA beta strategy differ from EndoTech’s previous strategies?
10. What live trading results have been achieved specifically through QUANTAIRA?
11. Will QUANTAIRA publish independently verified monthly performance reports?
12. What happens when the AI strategy experiences a prolonged period of losses?

These are not unreasonable demands.

They are the basic questions anyone should ask before allowing an automated system to trade their money.

My verdict: promising technology is not the same as proven profitability

I can understand the attraction of QUANTAIRA.

Automated trading, AI technology, an exchange-based custody model and the possibility of earning from trading activity make an interesting proposition.

EndoTech has also published material describing its technology and historical trading performance.

But I would not confuse those things with proof that QUANTAIRA will make its members money.

The reported 865% return and 82.21% win rate are impressive claims. They deserve to be examined, not simply repeated.

The next step should be straightforward.

Publish the complete trading records. Identify which results are live and which are hypothetical. Provide independent verification. Show maximum drawdowns, trading costs and performance across different market conditions.

Then let prospective members examine the evidence for themselves.

I am not asking QUANTAIRA to guarantee profits. No legitimate trading system can do that.

I am asking for evidence that the system has a genuine, measurable trading edge.

Until that evidence is available, my assessment is that QUANTAIRA’s trading profitability remains unproven from the information I have been able to verify publicly.

That does not establish that the system is fraudulent or that it cannot make money.

It means prospective members should not treat the advertised performance figures as proof of what they will earn.

If an AI trading system really has a sustained and profitable track record, showing the evidence should be one of its strongest selling points.

People deserve to see the numbers before they put their money at risk.

Research note: This article examines publicly available information as of November 2026, including QUANTAIRA announcements, EndoTech’s published performance material and reporting about its October 2026 presentation. Some historical performance figures are claims attributed to presentations or company publications, not independently audited results established by this article. The article does not conclude that QUANTAIRA is a scam. It assesses whether the available evidence is sufficient to establish profitable trading performance.

QUANTAIRA Compensation Plan Explained: Where Is the Actual Compensation Plan?

What do QUANTAIRA members really earn? How do the referral rewards work? And why is it so difficult to find a complete compensation plan?

QUANTAIRA is being promoted as an AI-powered automated trading platform, with an additional opportunity for members to earn rewards through its community referral programme.

That combination naturally attracts interest.

People want to know whether they can earn money from their own trading account, whether they can earn additional income by introducing other members, and whether building a larger referral network can generate recurring commissions.

But there is a fundamental problem.

Where is the complete QUANTAIRA compensation plan?

I have looked for a publicly available document that explains the full payment structure, including commission percentages, qualification requirements, referral levels, downline calculations, payment conditions and worked examples.

I have not found one.

There are promotional statements, references to community reward pools and explanations of the proposed fee structure. However, these do not amount to a complete compensation plan.

That matters. Before anyone promotes a business opportunity, they should be able to explain precisely how the money is made and how payments are calculated.

This article examines what can currently be established, what has been claimed, and what remains unanswered.

1. What is the QUANTAIRA compensation plan?

QUANTAIRA appears to combine two separate activities:

1. Automated trading using technology supplied by EndoTech.
2. A referral-based rewards programme through which members may qualify for a share of designated bonus pools.

The first activity concerns trading performance.

The second concerns the distribution of money to members who participate in promoting the platform and developing an organisation.

These are not the same thing.

A person might use the trading platform without introducing anyone else. Another person might introduce several members and build a referral organisation.

The important question is how the second activity is rewarded.

The public material refers to community rewards funded from trading-related fees and profits. However, it does not provide enough information to calculate what an individual member will receive.

2. The 15% trading-profit reward

One of the figures appearing in QUANTAIRA promotional material is 15% of trading profits.

The October 2026 launch material describes a reward arrangement in which 15% of global trading profits is allocated to community bonus pools.

This is potentially significant, but the percentage alone tells us very little about individual earnings.

Consider the questions that need answering:

• Is the 15% calculated from gross trading profits or net profits after all costs?
• Are losing trades deducted before the pool is calculated?
• Are operating expenses deducted?
• Is the pool distributed equally or according to a formula?
• Does a member’s personal trading balance affect their entitlement?
• Does referral organisation trading volume determine their share?
• Are there different bonus pools for different levels of participation?
• Is there a maximum payment per member?

Without these details, nobody can reliably calculate an individual’s earnings.

For example, if the community pool contained £100,000, that would not mean each member receives an equal share. The actual payment would depend on the allocation rules.

Those rules need to be published.

3. The 60% trading-fee reward claim

Another figure appearing in promotional material associated with the QUANTAIRA launch is 60% of trading fees returned to the community.

This claim deserves particular attention.

It is not enough to say that 60% of fees are returned. Members need to know:

• Which fees are included?
• Are these exchange trading fees, platform fees or another category?
• Who actually receives the money?
• How is the 60% divided?
• Is it distributed according to individual trading activity?
• Does referral organisation volume determine entitlement?
• Is this a separate reward pool from the 15% trading-profit allocation?

There is also a question about how this claim relates to the 30% performance fee described in the October launch material.

The two figures should not automatically be treated as parts of one confirmed compensation formula. The published promotional statements do not provide enough detail to reconcile them.

Until QUANTAIRA publishes a definitive explanation, members should not assume that the 60% reward is a guaranteed or individually calculable commission.

4. The 30% performance fee and promoter bonus pool

A further detail reported from the October 2026 launch webinar is a 30% performance fee on trading profits.

An independent report discussing the webinar describes half of this fee being allocated to promoter bonus pools.

This would explain the reference to 15% of global trading profits:

• 30% is the stated performance fee.
• 50% of that fee is reportedly allocated to bonus pools.
• This would represent 15% of the trading profits used in that calculation.

That is a possible explanation of the figures, but it still does not explain how the bonus pool is divided between individual members.

It is also important to distinguish a fee from a commission.

A performance fee is a charge associated with trading profits. A promoter reward is a payment made to qualifying members from a designated pool.

They are different transactions, and the contractual documents should explain both.

5. How does the referral system work?

Public launch material indicates that members join through a referral link supplied by the person who introduced them.

The launch webinar has also been described as presenting a monthly bonus-pool arrangement linked to trading volume within a member’s organisation.

This suggests that the referral organisation has a role in determining rewards.

However, there is a major difference between knowing that organisational trading volume matters and knowing exactly how it translates into income.

For example:

• Does a personally referred member contribute more to your reward calculation than someone introduced several levels below you?
• Are there multiple referral generations?
• Is the system binary, unilevel or another structure?
• Is there a matching bonus?
• Are payments based on the total trading volume of the organisation?
• Are members required to maintain a minimum personal trading balance?
• Does a member need to introduce a minimum number of people?
• Are there monthly qualification requirements?

I have not found a complete public document answering these questions.

It would therefore be misleading to describe QUANTAIRA as having a confirmed binary, matrix or multi-level commission structure without the actual plan.

6. Does QUANTAIRA have ranks and levels?

Interestingly, the October launch webinar has been described as saying that the rewards programme has no ranks, levels or upfront commissions.

If that description is accurate, it would distinguish the proposed arrangement from many traditional network-marketing compensation plans.

However, the absence of ranks does not necessarily mean the absence of organisational qualification requirements.

A programme can operate without named ranks while still calculating payments according to referral organisation volume, activity or other criteria.

The exact formula matters much more than the terminology.

Members need to know whether a small organisation can qualify for rewards, whether larger organisations receive a greater share, and whether there are minimum conditions that must be maintained.

7. How much could you earn with 10, 50, 100 or 1,000 members?

This is probably the question most prospective promoters want answered.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to produce reliable earnings projections from the information currently available.

To calculate income from a downline of 10, 50, 100 or 1,000 members, we would need at least:

1. The precise percentage of the reward pool allocated to each member.
2. The method used to calculate organisational trading volume.
3. The rules governing referral generations.
4. Any personal activity or qualification requirements.
5. The total fees and profits from which the reward pool is funded.
6. The payment frequency and any applicable caps.

Without those figures, any table showing projected monthly earnings would be speculation.

For example, claiming that 100 members could generate £2,000 per month would be meaningless unless the underlying calculation could be demonstrated.

A large organisation does not automatically translate into a large income.

The amount available for distribution, the trading activity generated and the member’s position under the reward formula all matter.

A genuine compensation plan should allow members to calculate potential payments using published rules, rather than relying on earnings illustrations supplied by individual promoters.

8. Is this a traditional MLM compensation plan?

There are similarities with network-marketing models because members are introduced through referral links and organisational activity appears to influence reward eligibility.

However, the available information is insufficient to classify the precise compensation structure.

The critical question is where the money distributed to promoters originates.

If rewards are funded from actual trading-related fees and performance fees, the plan should explain how those amounts are collected and allocated.

It should also explain whether rewards depend on:

• The number of people recruited.
• The trading balances of referred members.
• The trading volume generated by the organisation.
• The actual profits generated by the trading system.
• A combination of these factors.

This is not a minor technicality.

A referral programme funded by genuine external trading revenue is different from one in which rewards depend primarily on new participants bringing money into the system.

The compensation documents should make that distinction transparent.

9. The questions QUANTAIRA needs to answer

A company asking people to promote its platform should make its compensation arrangements understandable.

At a minimum, I would expect to see a formal document answering the following questions.

The reward pool

• What percentage of revenue is allocated to the community?
• Is the 15% figure based on gross or net trading profits?
• What exactly does the 60% trading-fee statement mean?
• Are these separate pools or different descriptions of the same arrangement?

Individual earnings

• How is each member’s share calculated?
• Does personal trading volume count?
• Does downline trading volume count?
• Are there different referral generations?
• Is there a maximum monthly payment?

Qualification

• Must members maintain a minimum account balance?
• Must they actively trade?
• Must they personally refer other members?
• Are there monthly qualification conditions?

Payments

• How frequently are rewards calculated?
• When are payments made?
• In which currency?
• Are payments made to the member’s exchange account or another wallet?
• What happens when a member leaves the programme?

Legal and contractual terms

• Which legal entity is responsible for paying rewards?
• Which jurisdiction governs the compensation agreement?
• What happens if the trading platform changes its fee structure?
• Can the company change the reward formula?
• What happens to accrued but unpaid rewards if the programme ends?

These are reasonable questions. They should not require a prospective member to rely on a private presentation or verbal assurances from a sponsor.

10. Why the absence of a published plan matters

There is nothing inherently wrong with a company developing a new compensation model.

A new platform may still be finalising its operational arrangements, and its reward structure may change during a beta period.

But there is a difference between a developing programme and a fully explained business opportunity.

If people are being encouraged to introduce others, build organisations and anticipate recurring income, they need to understand the rules before making claims about potential earnings.

Without a complete plan, a prospective promoter cannot properly assess:

• Whether the opportunity is financially worthwhile.
• How much activity is needed to qualify.
• Whether income is realistically achievable.
• Whether the reward structure favours a small number of large organisations.
• Whether payments are sustainable.
• What happens when trading performance is poor.

This is particularly important where the reward pool depends on trading profits. Trading profits are not guaranteed, and a period of poor performance could reduce or eliminate the amount available for distribution.

11. My assessment of the QUANTAIRA compensation plan

At present, I would separate what has been publicly described from what remains unproven.

Area	What can currently be established
Referral links	Members are introduced through referral links
Community rewards	A reward-pool arrangement has been promoted
Trading-profit allocation	15% has been publicly claimed
Trading-fee allocation	60% has appeared in promotional material
Performance fee	30% has been described in launch material
Monthly payments	A monthly bonus-pool arrangement has been described
Organisation volume	Reportedly relevant to reward allocation
Ranks and levels	Launch material reportedly says there are none
Detailed commission formula	Not established from a complete published plan
Individual earnings projections	Cannot be reliably calculated
Qualification and payment rules	Not sufficiently documented publicly

The central issue is not whether the percentages sound attractive.

It is whether members can see exactly how those percentages are converted into actual payments.

At the time of writing, I have not located a complete, official compensation-plan document that allows an independent reader to reproduce the calculations.

That is a significant information gap.

Final verdict: QUANTAIRA needs to publish the numbers

QUANTAIRA is promoting a combination of automated trading and a community rewards programme.

The promotional material gives prospective members some headline figures: 15% of trading profits, 60% of trading fees and a reported 30% performance fee.

But headline percentages are not a compensation plan.

A proper plan must explain who gets paid, how much they get paid, what they have to do to qualify, how organisational activity is measured and where the money comes from.

Until those details are published in a clear, official document, it is not possible to calculate what an individual member might earn from a downline of 10, 100 or 1,000 people.

I would not publish earnings projections, promise residual income or encourage anyone to build a referral organisation on the basis of the available information alone.

My position is straightforward: publish the full compensation plan, show the calculations and let prospective members make an informed decision.

People deserve to know exactly how the money works before they are asked to promote an opportunity to friends, family or their wider network.

Research note: This article is based on publicly available QUANTAIRA promotional material, descriptions of its October 2026 launch webinar and publicly available community posts. It is not based on a private compensation document or access to QUANTAIRA’s back office. Where a payment structure has been described by third parties rather than confirmed in a complete official document, that limitation has been made clear. The absence of a published document does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing.