Why One Broker Left Octa to Launch Elev8

The Birth of Elev8: why one broker ditched the Octa name

Is a brand name an asset or a liability? It can be both. However, for any company looking to develop and grow independently, even a famous household name can quickly become a heavy anchor. The recent decision of one of the companies formerly operating under the Octa brand to launch a new broker, Elev8, may be one such example. We decided to investigate the factors that may have influenced the company’s decision and the likely motives behind this move. Is it a radical shift toward strategic autonomy or a calculated decision to distance itself from a ‘wrong neighbourhood’?

The recent news that an Octa-branded company has parted ways with that name and launched its own independent broker, Elev8, has captured the industry’s attention and sparked numerous questions. The primary question is: why would a global company with an already well-recognised name choose to abandon its established identity and foray into the unknown, pioneering a new chapter in its corporate history? This is clearly no mere surface-level rebranding. Typically, such steps resemble a long-term strategy—a move likely orchestrated over months to ensure the new broker starts its journey entirely free from its predecessor’s shadow.

One of the most critical nuances that often escapes the notice of a general user is the legal intricacy of brand ownership. Last year, Octa disclosed the legal details of its organisational structure, revealing that various Octa-related legal entities used the Octa brand under brand-sharing agreements. It is vital to understand that companies using the Octa name in different regions have always been entirely separate structures, never legally or operationally linked. These were distinct companies with their own workflows and processes from the very beginning. In essence, their shared brand name is nearly the only element that connected these distinct companies.

As a result, one of the most likely reasons for the current transformation—and the launch of the Elev8 brand—is a desire for total strategic independence. By launching its own brand, the company is not ‘splitting’ processes—which were already separate—but rather resolving legal complications inherent in brand-sharing. This step allows the new broker to build and control its own reputation without being affected by the actions of other players still using the Octa brand, which continues to exist independently. In other words, creating a unique, proprietary brand is a logical step for a company striving to operate in a transparent structure that is readily understood by regulators.

Furthermore, a significant driver for the launch of Elev8 was likely the need to adapt effectively to evolving legislative requirements. Indeed, the world of trading is becoming increasingly regulated. For a broker to obtain ‘heavyweight’ licenses in Tier-1 jurisdictions, regulators demand absolute transparency and an impeccable reputation. Operating under a new, proprietary brand simplifies compliance procedures and allows the company to move away from any negative associations or ‘aura’ that may have attached itself to the previous brand name. While some might view this as a mere formality, a shift toward global, ‘high-quality’ licenses expands opportunities for clients, enhances the protection of funds, and provides access to new financial instruments. Thus, a new brand opens doors to markets where the old name might have encountered legal hurdles or associative barriers.

While some reasons for launching an independent brand, such as obtaining strategic independence for stronger global licensing and scaling, seem obvious, there may be other underlying factors at play.

Business history is full of examples where a change of identity helped a company distance itself from a negative industry background or otherwise redefine its strategic boundaries. Consider the transformation of Google into Alphabet. It allowed ‘Google’ brand (search/ads) to be legally and operationally separate from its more risky (and some might say ‘toxic’) experimental ventures (like Waymo or Verily), protecting the main brand’s reputation and providing clarity to investors. Another famous case is the emergence of Accenture from what was formerly Andersen Consulting. Because they transitioned into a new identity just before the Enron scandal broke, they managed to survive the total reputational collapse of their former parent company. 

Similarly, while it wasn’t the official reason, the debut of Meta (former Facebook) followed a wave of negative press triggered by whistleblower documents, allowing the company to shift its focus away from issues surrounding its social media platform. A slightly different, yet similar logic was seen when GDAX (Global Digital Asset Exchange) rebranded to Coinbase Pro. The move allowed the exchange to leave behind its identity as a niche digital asset platform, moving away from the more experimental associations of early crypto exchanges and emerging as a sophisticated ecosystem with a more ‘institutional’ and regulated image.

In the case of the company dropping the Octa brand to launch Elev8, a primary motive appears to be an image refresh—specifically, moving away from a ‘wrong neighbourhood’. If a brand becomes associated with outdated business models or enters a ‘toxic zone’ due to the actions of other companies using the same name, starting a new broker under a new name becomes the only way to restore its image. It is a subtle but firm way for a professional team to distance themselves from a negative reputation and state, ‘We are different! We uphold different standards of quality and ethics.’

Ultimately, the launch of a new broker is a declaration of growth. The old brand may have simply become too limiting for the company’s current ambitions. A fresh start for a self-sufficient new broker may result in the formation of a global ecosystem for traders. This looks like a long-term strategic move to start fresh, free from the constraints and negative associations of the old model. For the market, it is a signal that the company is moving into the ‘major leagues’, betting on legitimacy, independence, and global development.

A launch of this magnitude confirms that the company possesses the resources and a long-term vision. There is every reason to believe that this is not just a change of logo, but an evolutionary transition toward a global ecosystem for traders that is more flexible, technologically advanced, and—most importantly—fully self-sufficient.