Looking through the surface level details of Double, I quite like what I'm seeing. That said, I use Schwab, Wealthfront, and M1 and am not entirely happy with

Looking through the surface level details of Double, I quite like what I'm seeing. That said, I use Schwab, Wealthfront, and M1 and am not entirely happy with any of them so I am probably a targeted type of customer. I haven't lookeded too deeply (no idea if implementing things like HFEA style leveraged portfolios in an efficient way is possible, for example, or if there are non-index means of handling hold-till-maturity bonds), and probably will later. That said, based on the comments here I'm curious: 1. I've always assumed % fees were related to the cost of risks being proportional to account AUM crossed with holding and transaction expenses. Fixed fees to me imply that you don't think any risks on your end are portfolio size or transaction size proportional. If this is really the case, why is this the case? (Or why am I wrong about the link?) 2. Lots of commentators seem interested in questions about how you loan holdings and if shareholders get cuts and if you accept payment for order flow. I'm less concerned with these exact things and more concerned with how the customer relationship is defined. Is there an equivalent to being a fiduciary when it comes to handling such things? Or would that force you to not permit as much self direction from account holders? Are the $1 payers for sure the customer or is there a second side to your market/business model?