ع
VI Markets’ July academy launch offers a case study in the difference between practising trades and understanding financial risk.
VI Markets’ move into app-based financial education puts a practical question at the centre of retail trading: what should a beginner understand before putting money at risk? The Kuwait-linked business announced VI Academy in July, combining lessons with simulated trading. Its significance lies in the opportunity to examine the gap between learning how a trading screen works and understanding what a financial position can cost.
The announcement published on 3 July 2026 described Arabic and English educational material, assessments and a simulator using virtual currency. It also outlined an AI assistant and competitive elements. These are company-described features, rather than evidence of improved investment outcomes.
The distinction matters for anyone evaluating financial education delivered by a trading business. A course can explain terminology and provide practice without establishing that its graduates will make profitable decisions. The relevant question is what learners retain when the lesson ends and a real financial consequence begins.
The gap between access and understanding
International research gives that question a measurable foundation. The OECD/INFE’s 2023 survey of adult financial literacy, covering 39 countries and economies, reported an average financial literacy score of 60 out of 100. Only 34% of adults across participating economies reached its minimum target of 70 points.
The same study put average digital financial literacy at 53 out of 100, with 29% reaching the target score. Those figures describe the participating economies collectively. They are not a measure of Kuwait’s population or VI Markets’ customers, and should not be presented as either.
What they establish is a broader educational problem: access to financial services and knowledge about those services are different things. The survey measures financial knowledge, behaviour and attitudes, extending beyond the ability to place an order or recognise a price chart. An educational programme aimed at traders therefore sits within a larger discussion about how people understand money, uncertainty and financial commitments.
What a practice account actually demonstrates
VI Academy’s launch material said users would begin with 1,000 units of virtual currency. That creates a setting for trying decisions without committing the equivalent amount of personal savings. It does not turn a simulated balance into a forecast of what the same person would earn with a live account.
Talal Al Ajmi, chief executive of VI Markets, said in the July announcement: “At VI Markets, we believe that knowledge is one of the most powerful investment tools.” The statement expresses the company’s rationale for the project. Whether the programme produces lasting gains in knowledge is a separate, testable question.
A useful distinction is between an operational skill and a financial judgement. Knowing where to enter an order is an operational skill. Deciding how much exposure is tolerable is a judgement. A simulator can provide a setting in which to practise both, but a rising virtual balance alone does not reveal which has improved.
Consider two hypothetical learners who finish with the same gain. One may have taken a small position repeatedly; the other may have concentrated the entire practice balance in one successful decision. Their final totals are identical, yet those totals conceal very different paths and levels of exposure. Educational assessment needs more information than the finishing balance.
When competition becomes part of the lesson
The use of points and leaderboards brings another dimension into view: software design can influence financial behaviour. In research published in June 2024, Britain’s Financial Conduct Authority tested digital engagement practices in an experimental trading app with more than 9,000 consumers.
Push notifications and a points-and-prize-draw feature increased trading frequency by 11% and 12%, respectively. The regulator also found that some effects were greater among participants with lower financial literacy. The experiment concerned trading-app features, not VI Academy, and does not establish how users behave on this particular educational platform.
It nevertheless provides a reason to distinguish engagement from learning. Returning to an app more often is an observable activity; understanding a concept more accurately is an educational outcome. A leaderboard recording assessment results and one recording trading returns are measuring different things, even if both encourage users to return.
For readers, this makes the definition of progress important. A completed lesson, a correct explanation of risk and a profitable simulated trade should not be treated as interchangeable evidence.
The lessons beyond the price chart
VI Markets’ public web curriculum provides a separate view of its educational approach. It lists six modules spanning market structure, contracts for difference, foreign exchange, analysis, risk management and trading psychology. The web lessons should not be assumed to reproduce every feature of the mobile application.
The inclusion of risk and psychology matters because the subject extends beyond selecting a market direction. The curriculum explicitly covers leverage and margin, the difference between a CFD and ownership of an underlying asset, position sizing and behavioural biases. These are distinct concepts that a simple profit figure cannot assess.
The July launch announcement did not supply independently assessed learning gains or subsequent live-trading results. That leaves a concrete question for the next stage of reporting: can users explain these concepts more accurately after completing the programme, and does that understanding persist? Those results would show what an educational platform has taught beyond the mechanics of its own screen.
