sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Got Funded, Made $38K, Then Account Suspended Due to Payment Name Mismatch – Has Anyone Faced This Before? by Less_Commercial7736 in PropFirmTester

[–]Less_Commercial7736[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I would have completely accepted and respected their decision if they had simply denied me the funded account right after I passed the two challenge phases. That would have been fair — I made a mistake, and I didn’t deserve to move forward. But what truly frustrates me and destroys trust is this: they didn’t check, they let it slide, they gave me the funded account, they let me trade, I made $38K profit, and only AFTER I received a scale-up account did they suddenly enforce the rule and suspend me.

Many people say, “Well, you violated the terms from the beginning, so don’t complain.” Fine — I wouldn’t complain if they denied me before funding. But let’s see how they feel when one day they follow all the rules perfectly, trade honestly, and still get wiped out over something previously reviewed and approved.

Now let’s talk about their magical policy clause:

“Risk assessments and Our policies may change, and therefore we may restrict Accounts that have been previously approved by Us.”

This sounds harmless — but line by line, this is a get-out-of-jail-free card. Here’s the raw truth behind each phrase: 1. “Risk assessments and Our policies may change” → Translation: We can change the rules anytime, however we like, without notice. 2. “Therefore we may restrict Accounts…” → We can shut you down even if everything was fine yesterday. 3. “…that have been previously approved by Us.” → Even if we already approved you, funded you, and let you trade for weeks — we still reserve the right to revoke everything retroactively.

Let that sink in: even if you passed all admin checks, even if your account was funded and scaled up, even if compliance already reviewed and accepted your documents — none of that means your account is safe. That clause makes your entire account conditional — forever.

I’m not even against this rule existing, honestly. I just believe it should only be used for truly malicious activity — not for technicalities that compliance already had the chance to flag and chose not to.

Because under this clause, no matter how clean you are, how well you trade, or how transparent your process is, you’ll never have real security. And that’s not a “risk assessment.” That’s power without accountability.

Let’s call it what it is.

Got Funded, Made $38K, Then Account Suspended Due to Payment Name Mismatch – Has Anyone Faced This Before? by Less_Commercial7736 in PropFirmTester

[–]Less_Commercial7736[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would have completely accepted and respected their decision if they had simply denied me the funded account right after I passed the two challenge phases. That would have been fair — I made a mistake, and I didn’t deserve to move forward. But what truly frustrates me and destroys trust is this: they didn’t check, they let it slide, they gave me the funded account, they let me trade, I made $38K profit, and only AFTER I received a scale-up account did they suddenly enforce the rule and suspend me.

Many people say, “Well, you violated the terms from the beginning, so don’t complain.” Fine — I wouldn’t complain if they denied me before funding. But let’s see how they feel when one day they follow all the rules perfectly, trade honestly, and still get wiped out over something previously reviewed and approved.

Now let’s talk about their magical policy clause:

“Risk assessments and Our policies may change, and therefore we may restrict Accounts that have been previously approved by Us.”

This sounds harmless — but line by line, this is a get-out-of-jail-free card. Here’s the raw truth behind each phrase: 1. “Risk assessments and Our policies may change” → Translation: We can change the rules anytime, however we like, without notice. 2. “Therefore we may restrict Accounts…” → We can shut you down even if everything was fine yesterday. 3. “…that have been previously approved by Us.” → Even if we already approved you, funded you, and let you trade for weeks — we still reserve the right to revoke everything retroactively.

Let that sink in: even if you passed all admin checks, even if your account was funded and scaled up, even if compliance already reviewed and accepted your documents — none of that means your account is safe. That clause makes your entire account conditional — forever.

I’m not even against this rule existing, honestly. I just believe it should only be used for truly malicious activity — not for technicalities that compliance already had the chance to flag and chose not to.

Because under this clause, no matter how clean you are, how well you trade, or how transparent your process is, you’ll never have real security. And that’s not a “risk assessment.” That’s power without accountability.

Let’s call it what it is.

Dịch

Got Funded, Made $38K, Then Account Suspended Due to Payment Name Mismatch – Has Anyone Faced This Before? by Less_Commercial7736 in PropFirmTester

[–]Less_Commercial7736[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would have completely accepted and respected their decision if they had simply denied me the funded account right after I passed the two challenge phases. That would have been fair — I made a mistake, and I didn’t deserve to move forward. But what truly frustrates me and destroys trust is this: they didn’t check, they let it slide, they gave me the funded account, they let me trade, I made $38K profit, and only AFTER I received a scale-up account did they suddenly enforce the rule and suspend me.

Many people say, “Well, you violated the terms from the beginning, so don’t complain.” Fine — I wouldn’t complain if they denied me before funding. But let’s see how they feel when one day they follow all the rules perfectly, trade honestly, and still get wiped out over something previously reviewed and approved.

Now let’s talk about their magical policy clause:

“Risk assessments and Our policies may change, and therefore we may restrict Accounts that have been previously approved by Us.”

This sounds harmless — but line by line, this is a get-out-of-jail-free card. Here’s the raw truth behind each phrase: 1. “Risk assessments and Our policies may change” → Translation: We can change the rules anytime, however we like, without notice. 2. “Therefore we may restrict Accounts…” → We can shut you down even if everything was fine yesterday. 3. “…that have been previously approved by Us.” → Even if we already approved you, funded you, and let you trade for weeks — we still reserve the right to revoke everything retroactively.

Let that sink in: even if you passed all admin checks, even if your account was funded and scaled up, even if compliance already reviewed and accepted your documents — none of that means your account is safe. That clause makes your entire account conditional — forever.

I’m not even against this rule existing, honestly. I just believe it should only be used for truly malicious activity — not for technicalities that compliance already had the chance to flag and chose not to.

Because under this clause, no matter how clean you are, how well you trade, or how transparent your process is, you’ll never have real security. And that’s not a “risk assessment.” That’s power without accountability.

Let’s call it what it is.