The introducing broker business is deceptively simple to describe and awkward to run. You send people to a broker under your partner code. Some of them register. Fewer fund. A smaller group trades enough to produce anything. Your income is a function of that last group, and the only reliable record of who is where usually lives in a broker portal you refresh, plus a few hundred Telegram conversations you half remember.
Scalegram was built around that specific shape, which is why the pipeline is not a generic list of deals.
The stage is verified, not claimed
Every IB has met the same three people. The one who says they registered but used a link from a different partner. The one who says they deposited and did not. The one who genuinely did both and gets forgotten because nothing in the chat marked it.
Scalegram connects to the broker's introducing-broker feed. A referral gives their account identifier, the integration checks whether that account sits under your code and whether it has funded, and the contact moves stage on that answer. Nothing advances on a screenshot or a promise. Where a broker's partner API only exposes data by date range, that data is cached locally so the check is instant rather than a request per lookup. The detail is in checking broker UIDs automatically, and a worked example of a live broker connection is in the PuPrime IB integration.
This is the difference between a CRM that holds a field called "deposited" and a CRM that knows. A field is a note somebody typed. The check is evidence.
Access is granted after the check, not before it
Most IBs run a private group as the incentive: open under my code, fund, and you get the room. The moment that is manual it becomes a queue, and the queue is where people cool off and never come back.
Scalegram closes it in the conversation. The referral is asked for their account number, the check runs, and the invite is issued if it passes. If it fails, the reason is given and the contact stays in the pipeline rather than being quietly dropped. The full sequence including the failure paths is in the VIP invite flow end to end.
Which ad, which link, which lead
IBs buying traffic have been flying blind on Telegram for years. The click was measurable, the join was not, and the funded account certainly was not, so the campaign got optimised against joins and the joins were worth nothing.
Tracking links carry campaign parameters into the conversation, and the join, the registration and the funding each fire back as conversion events with the parameters still attached. The value goes with the purchase event where there is one. That closes the loop from ad spend to a funded account, which for an IB is the only loop worth closing.
An IB introduces clients to a broker. It does not manage money, does not advise, and cannot promise a result. Trading, especially on leverage, carries a high risk of loss, and the bot's guardrails are set so that it never says otherwise on your behalf.
The part that protects you: nothing is stored
An IB handles other people's account numbers, deposit sizes and identity details, and does it in a jurisdiction that may or may not have a view about that. Scalegram stores no message content whatsoever. Conversations are never saved into the product. What exists is a contact, its stage, when it was last in touch, and a link that opens the real Telegram chat.
That is a deliberate design choice, and for a partner business it is the sensible one. You do not want a searchable archive of client conversations in a third-party system, and neither does the broker whose clients they are. The full argument is in Scalegram never stores your conversations.
When there is a team
Partner operations grow sub-agents fast, and sub-agents are exactly the people you do not want holding the broker connection. Permissions are per area and per action: read, add, write, delete. A sub-agent can work their own contacts without reaching the integrations, and every connection lives on one Integrations page, which is the only place anything is connected in the entire product. Every other screen selects what is already there. That single-point design is what makes revoking access a ten second job rather than an audit.
What it will not fix
It will not make a bad broker pay you, and it will not turn cold traffic into funded accounts. If your problem is that your partner terms are poor or that your audience does not trust you, software is the wrong purchase. What it fixes is the specific waste of an IB business: leads that funded and were never noticed, invites issued to people who did not qualify, and a month of ad spend you cannot attribute. Current pricing sits on the product site.
The two numbers an IB should be able to read every morning
The first is how many referrals are sitting at registered but not funded. That is the only queue in the business worth working, and in a chat-based operation it is invisible, because the difference between a registered lead and a funded one is a fact stored in a broker portal rather than in the conversation. Once the check runs on a schedule, that queue is a filter rather than an evening of cross-referencing.
The second is cost per funded account by campaign. Not per click, not per join. An IB who optimises against joins will reliably buy the cheapest audience on the platform, which is also the audience least likely to fund, and the campaign will look excellent right up until the commission report arrives.
Neither number requires anyone to type anything, which is the point. Any figure that depends on a person updating a record after a conversation is a figure that will be stale within a week.
If you also run a broker or prop desk yourself rather than introducing to one, the operational side of that is a different product entirely, and the Broker CRM is where that conversation starts.
"Ask an IB how many of last month's leads actually funded and you get a number they worked out on Sunday night from two browser tabs. That is the whole job, and it is the part nobody has tooling for."
— Alex Onta, Executive Director, SINGUARD
Key Takeaways
- A referral's stage moves when the broker feed confirms the account sits under your code and has funded, not when someone says so.
- The private group invite is issued inside the conversation the moment the check passes, and a failed check returns a reason instead of silence.
- Tracking links carry campaign parameters through the join, the registration and the funding, so ad spend can be judged against funded accounts.
- No message content is stored, which matters when the conversations contain other people's account numbers and deposit sizes.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does Scalegram actually check with the broker?
It queries the broker's introducing-broker feed for the account identifier a referral gives, confirming whether that account sits under your partner code and whether it has been funded. The contact's stage follows that answer.
Can sub-agents work in the same account without seeing my broker connection?
Yes. Permissions are granted per area as read, add, write or delete, and every integration is connected on a single page that you can keep restricted.
Does Scalegram give trading advice to my referrals?
No. It is software for running the partner operation. The bot is blocked from promising results or making performance claims, and an introducing broker relationship is an introduction, not advice.
About the Author
Alex Onta is an Executive Director at SINGUARD. He built eTrader, the terminal, the mobile apps, eTrader Broker, Copytrading, Business and Community, along with the worldwide clustered-server infrastructure it all runs on, with his brother Roman Onta helping on the design, and he leads that division today. Together with Roman he builds the Prop Firm CRM, the Broker CRM, Scalegram and CopySignals, and the two of them carry worldwide compliance, payment processing and international business structuring side by side. He lives and works in Dubai for most of the year. Meet the executive duo leading Singuard's five divisions.