The case file for GMT Direct aggregates complaints from multiple channels. Reports consistently identify the platform as a liquidity-mining ponzi built around the same playbook used by hundreds of related front-ends.

Across the verified submissions, three red flags repeat: the broker demanded “tax” or “verification” fees before withdrawal, rebranded under multiple domains in succession, and promised guaranteed returns. None of these are unique to GMT Direct — they are the structural fingerprint of this scam typology.

Channels through which GMT Direct has been reported include Telegram channel testimonials, direct victim submissions through SARFund, and Facebook group reports. SARFund cross-references new submissions against existing reports before adding evidence to the case file.

What evidence helps most

Transaction hashes (the on-chain proof of your deposit), screenshots of the broker dashboard, KYC documents you submitted, and full conversation history with any account manager. These four pieces let the partner build a defensible chain of custody.

Why the recovery partner is masked

Listing the partner publicly creates two problems: it tips off perpetrators, who then accelerate fund-laundering, and it invites recovery-scam impersonators to clone the partner brand. Both happen often enough that masking is the only defensible default.

Suspect you were affected by GMT Direct? Submit your claim evidence and SARFund will route it to the partner working this case. No upfront fees, no obligation, no recovery guarantee — just verification and coordination.

SARFund does not guarantee recovery. All recovery actions are conducted by independent partners. Submission is free. SARFund is an intermediary case registry, not a recovery firm.