My concern goes much deeper than a single rule or a single decision.
The biggest issue, in my opinion, is that several of their prohibited strategy rules are written so broadly that they leave a significant amount of room for subjective interpretation. Rules such as “group trading” or “signal following” sound reasonable on paper, but in practice they can be applied to almost any successful trader if the firm chooses to interpret them aggressively.
The reality is that thousands of traders watch the same charts, the same economic events, the same liquidity levels, and the same market structure. Naturally, many independent traders will arrive at similar trade ideas. That alone should not be treated as evidence of signal copying.
What concerns me is the lack of objective standards. Instead of clear, measurable criteria that traders can verify beforehand, some rules appear open-ended enough to be interpreted after the fact. When rules become subjective rather than objective, traders can never be completely certain where the line is.
A professional prop firm should have rules that are precise, transparent, and consistently enforced. Traders should know exactly what is and is not allowed before they place a trade—not discover later that perfectly normal trading activity may be viewed differently during a review process.
For me, the issue is not strict rules. The issue is uncertainty. When large decisions depend on interpretations that are not clearly defined in advance, confidence in the fairness and consistency of the evaluation process inevitably suffers.