Raxx · internal docs

internal · gated

MBT Copy Sample — Attorney Review

NOT LEGAL ADVICE. This document compiles specific copy strings from Raxx's product surfaces that the attorney should review for Investment Advisers Act § 202(a)(11) compliance. Attorney review of this copy is required before any of these strings appear on a live production surface. Prepared: 2026-05-13 UTC.

Status note

The MBT in-product copy (screens inside the authenticated Raxx app) was not locatable in the public-facing codebase as of the preparation date of this package. The copy strings below are sourced from:

  1. frontend/trademaster_ui/src/pages/getraxx/ — public landing page at getraxx.com (the pre-authentication marketing surface)
  2. docs/design/founders-promo/activation-page/ — Founders activation page design mockups (flagged [ATTORNEY REVIEW REQUIRED] in those docs)
  3. Product principle language that appears in user-facing contexts

Kristerpher should supplement this document with: - MBT in-product copy (strategy creation screens, confirmation screens, paper-trading dashboard, execution confirmation flow) - Any in-product notification copy (pattern-match notifications, trade alerts, daily P&L digest subject lines and body text) - Any onboarding copy (account setup, broker connection flow)

The attorney should treat this document as a starting set and request the full copy inventory from the operator at engagement.

A — Public landing page (getraxx.com)

A1 — Hero section headline

Stack raxx. Trust the tape.

Attorney flag: "Trust the tape" is a trading idiom for following market price action. Does it imply that Raxx provides guidance on what to trust or how to read the tape? Or is it purely motivational framing directed at the user as a trader?

A2 — Hero section subheadline

The quant cockpit for traders who'd rather read the numbers than the news.
Backtest, paper, and go live — on one tight surface.

Attorney flag: "Quant cockpit" positions the product as a quantitative analysis tool. "Backtest, paper, and go live" describes the workflow. Does this framing constitute "analyses or reports concerning securities" at the platform level, or is it a description of a software toolset that the user deploys?

A3 — Pillar 1 copy

Backtest like you mean it

Securities backtesting across stocks and ETFs — 10+ years of bars, side-by-side
scenario diffs. Options trading (paper) and options screening included in MBT v1.
Options backtesting: coming soon (data licensing in progress).

Attorney flag: "Securities backtesting" and "options screening" are described as platform features. Does a platform that enables securities backtesting and options screening thereby "issue analyses or reports concerning securities" for the user, or is it a calculation tool that the user directs?

A4 — Pillar 2 copy

Paper-first, always

Every strategy runs in paper mode before it touches real size. You decide when
to promote. No accidents. No "wait, is this live?".

Attorney flag: "You decide when to promote" reinforces user control over going live. "No accidents" is a safety positioning. Low advisory-content risk. Flag if attorney sees an issue.

A5 — Pillar 3 copy

One surface to production

Your broker, your account, your feeds — one dashboard, one set of P&L numbers,
one source of truth.

Attorney flag: "Your broker, your account" reinforces BYOB model and non-custody. "P&L numbers" — does displaying P&L numbers from the user's own account constitute "analyses or reports concerning securities"? The P&L is computed from the user's own trades, not Raxx's analysis of securities.

A6 — Product window mock data (static display)

The product preview window in the landing page shows static mock data:

SPY · 1D · Mean-reversion v3
total return: +34.2%
sharpe: 1.87
max drawdown: -8.4%
win rate: 58.3%
trades: 247

Attorney flag: These are mock/demo values, not real user data. They are used to illustrate what the product looks like, not to display real performance. Does displaying sample backtest metrics on a marketing page — with a disclaimer that it is mock data — constitute a performance representation that requires disclosure? The SEC Marketing Rule (Rule 206(4)-1) specifically addresses backtested performance in advertising. Does this apply if Raxx is not a registered IA?

B — Founders Promo activation page (flagged [ATTORNEY REVIEW REQUIRED])

Source: docs/design/founders-promo/activation-page/mockup.html and README.

B1 — Activation headline (Variant A — direct waitlist)

You waited. Pro access starts now.

Attorney flag: Straightforward welcome copy. Low advisory-content risk. Flag if attorney sees an issue.

B2 — Activation headline (Variant B — referred)

[Referrer display name] stacked a seat for you.

Attorney flag: Referral language. Related to Q6 in the pre-meeting questions (Solicitors Rule, anti-touting). Attorney should assess whether the referral mechanic itself — and its communication — requires disclosure language.

B3 — Trial offer copy

Two weeks of Raxx Pro, covered. [Variant B]
Three months of Raxx Pro, covered. [Variant A]

B4 — Founders pricing callout (flagged for attorney review)

Founders pricing — our cost, not our sticker price.

Attorney flag: Flagged in design docs. "At-cost" pricing language. Per Scope of Work Item 2: does this create a consumer-protection exposure or require specific disclosure? Does "our cost" require definition?

B5 — Offer terms block (inside <details> accordion — flagged for attorney review)

The full offer terms block text is not reproduced here pending attorney engagement — it contains specific trial lengths, renewal terms, and referral bonus structures. Operator will provide the full HTML at engagement.

Key elements flagged in design docs: - "3-month free trial, no card required" - "+3 months to referrer on their friend's conversion" - "+1 month per approved feedback submission" - Pro at-cost pricing (exact dollar amount TBD)

Attorney flag: Full terms require attorney drafting or review. This is the highest-priority item in the Founders Promo scope. Do not ship any user-visible offer terms without attorney sign-off.

B6 — Referral block

Share your link. +3 months to you when they go Pro.

Attorney flag: This is the most direct statement of the referral bonus. Assess against SEC Rule 206(4)-3 and state blue-sky anti-touting rules.

C — Notification copy (draft patterns — operator to confirm current text)

These are the notification patterns described in the AI strategy execution research doc. Current production copy for these notifications has not been confirmed; operator should provide current draft copy at engagement.

C1 — Pattern-match notification (Scenario D)

Draft pattern (researcher-described):

Iron condor: setup matches your 90-day winning profile /
for the last 30 days, your 30-delta iron condors with 45-DTE entry
have returned 88.4% on 32 set trades.

Attorney flag (per Q2 in pre-meeting questions): - "winning profile" — evaluative label applied by the platform. Potentially crosses from historical fact to advisory inference. - "have returned 88.4% on 32 set trades" — historical fact in past tense. Likely defensible as information, not advice. - "setup matches" — pattern-match trigger. Does "matches" imply "you should now trade"? Or is it a neutral condition report?

Recommended rewrite for attorney to confirm:

Current conditions match the entry parameters on your last 32 iron condor trades
(30-delta, 45 DTE). Those 32 trades returned +88.4% combined.

Is this rewrite defensible? Attorney to confirm.

D — Copy NOT found in codebase (operator to provide separately)

The following copy surfaces were searched but not located in the worktree as of 2026-05-13 UTC. Operator must provide these directly at engagement:

The attorney's review of copy — not this document's characterization of risk — is the authoritative analysis. This document is an input; the attorney's written memo is the output.