Tradewithsam

FOREX AND CRYPTO TRADER
4+years experience
FUNDED TRADER
TRADING PROPFIRMS SINCE 2025

[Tradewithsam @Tradewithsam02]

@theproptruth @t_a_m_i_l @TradingLucid KYC passed, payouts received before — so what changed this time? Explain @ajtradinglucid

[The Prop Truth @theproptruth]

🚨 LUCID TRADING — FROM $20K+ PAYOUTS TO ACCOUNT CLOSURE?

A trader @t_a_m_i_l claims his 5 funded accounts were paused just as he became eligible to request payouts.

According to the screenshots:

• Trader says he completed the required 5 profitable days across all 5 accounts

• Lucid Trading requested KYC re-verification

• Trader says he successfully completed it using his passport

• Shortly afterward, he was reportedly accused of “Cross-user coordinated trading”

• The accounts were reportedly permanently closed and access revoked

• Trader says he had previously received $20,000+ in payouts from Lucid Trading using the same identity/KYC details

The key question is the timing: if the same KYC and identity details were previously accepted for payouts, what specifically triggered the new enforcement decision?

Lucid’s current rules prohibit coordinated trading and trading across unconnected accounts, so the firm’s account-specific evidence would be important in resolving this dispute.

@TradingLucid — what evidence led to the “Cross-user coordinated trading” finding, and why was the same KYC previously accepted for payouts?
@ajtradinglucid
Traders deserve a clear, case-specific explanation. 👀

#LucidTrading #PropFirm #PropTrading

[Tradewithsam @Tradewithsam02]

@propwatchmedia @Pipstonecapital 🙌

[PropWatch @propwatchmedia]

🚨 BREAKING: PIPSTONE CAPITAL IS MOVING FAST.

Rewards approved in as little as 1 day exactly the kind of payout speed traders want to see.

No unnecessary waiting. No dragging out the process.

Trade your strategy. Hit your target. Get rewarded.

Props to @Pipstonecapital for putting fast trader rewards front and center.

[Tradewithsam @Tradewithsam02]

🎁 10 × $50K Tradify Accounts GIVEAWAY! 🔥

Want a shot at a $50K funded account? This one is simple.

✅ Follow @theproptruth @tradewithsam02
✅ Tag 3 traders in the comments

🏆 10 winners will be picked from the comments.

[The Prop Truth @theproptruth]

🚨 QT FUNDED — THIS IS NOT A SMALL PAYOUT DISPUTE

First $49,863 was reportedly rejected, and now another $10,000 payout has been rejected over an alleged OSB violation.

The trader @aaron_cfd says he has spent around $6,500 with QT Funded over 3 years.

According to the screenshots, when it came time for payouts, he was allegedly banned from the website and Discord, while his support request remained unresolved.

The trader also says QT’s OSB rule had already been removed before he purchased the accounts, and he has repeatedly requested the applicable rule and evidence behind the violation.

QT Funded’s current rules do list one-sided betting as a prohibited practice, so the timing and version of the rules applicable to these accounts are important.

@QTFunded — which rule version applied when these accounts were purchased, and what specific evidence supports the OSB finding?

$59K+ in disputed payouts and $6.5K reportedly spent. This deserves a clear, case-specific explanation. 👀
@QtFunded @AlexQuantTekel

[Tradewithsam @Tradewithsam02]

@theproptruth @Rahulfx111 @aaron_cfd @QTFunded @AlexQuantTekel If the trader has repeatedly requested evidence and a review, why has the dispute reportedly remained unresolved for around 2 months? A payout rejection should come with a clear, case-specific explanation—not unanswered questions.

[The Prop Truth @theproptruth]

🚨 QT FUNDED — THIS IS NOT A SMALL PAYOUT DISPUTE

First $49,863 was reportedly rejected, and now another $10,000 payout has been rejected over an alleged OSB violation.

The trader @aaron_cfd says he has spent around $6,500 with QT Funded over 3 years.

According to the screenshots, when it came time for payouts, he was allegedly banned from the website and Discord, while his support request remained unresolved.

The trader also says QT’s OSB rule had already been removed before he purchased the accounts, and he has repeatedly requested the applicable rule and evidence behind the violation.

QT Funded’s current rules do list one-sided betting as a prohibited practice, so the timing and version of the rules applicable to these accounts are important.

@QTFunded — which rule version applied when these accounts were purchased, and what specific evidence supports the OSB finding?

$59K+ in disputed payouts and $6.5K reportedly spent. This deserves a clear, case-specific explanation. 👀
@QtFunded @AlexQuantTekel

[Tradewithsam @Tradewithsam02]

@theproptruth @_PrzFunded Simple question: what is the timeline behind the numbers?
If the figures are genuine, providing the underlying history should make the situation clear. Transparency benefits both the firm and traders. 👀

[The Prop Truth @theproptruth]

🚨 PRZ FUNDED — SOME NUMBERS NEED EXPLAINING

A screenshot circulating raises questions about @PrzFunded’s public claims.

According to the screenshot:

• 66,000+ reviews
• $30,003+ distributed
• Launch reportedly scheduled for 21 September 2026
• X account reportedly joined only days earlier

But the current website now displays 66,002 reviews, $107,566 rewards distributed, and 3M+ traders, while also stating “Building Traders Globally Since 2022.”

So the question is simple:

How were these historical numbers generated, and what exactly do they represent?

@_PrzFunded — traders deserve a clear timeline and transparent explanation before trusting headline numbers.

Numbers are easy to display. Verification is what matters. 👀

#PropFirm #PropTrading #PrzFunded

[Tradewithsam @Tradewithsam02]

@theproptruth @tradershyam2414 @rzs12445 Free affiliate account → trader promotes the firm → trader becomes eligible for payout → payout gets rejected for “coupon fraud usage.”
@BlueGuardiancom @Aliatcx — what happened here? Show the evidence and clarify the timeline. 👀 @seanbaint

[The Prop Truth @theproptruth]

🚨 BLUE GUARDIAN — AFFILIATE PROMOTION, THEN PAYOUT REJECTED?

A trader @rzs12445 says he received a free $10K account through an affiliate arrangement with Blue Guardian and promoted the firm across Instagram and TikTok for a month.

After becoming profitable and requesting a payout, the request was reportedly rejected for “coupon fraud usage.”

The concern raised is simple:

If an affiliate provides an account specifically for promotion, and the trader successfully trades that account and becomes eligible for a payout, why was the payout later rejected on a coupon-related allegation?

@BlueGuardiancom @seanbaint — was the promotional account eligible for payouts from the beginning, and what exactly triggered the “coupon fraud” decision?

Affiliate promotion + successful trading + payout rejection deserves a clear explanation.

[Tradewithsam @Tradewithsam02]

@theproptruth @Rahulfx111 @colintusa LucidTrading Your own mission emphasizes transparent rules and responsive support. When a trader receives a permanent closure notice for an action they say they never took, transparency should start with explaining the evidence behind the decision.@TradingLucid @ajtradinglucid

[The Prop Truth @theproptruth]

🚨 LUCID TRADING — CHARGEBACK BAN, BUT THE TRADER SAYS HE NEVER BOUGHT AN ACCOUNT

A trader @colintusa says he received a permanent account-closure notice from Lucid

Trading citing:

• “Batch sweep: ≥1 chargeback + 0 active accounts”

• All associated accounts permanently closed

• Access to Lucid services revoked

• Trader says he never purchased a Lucid Trading account, never initiated a chargeback, and had not bought an account for months.

Lucid’s policy says fraudulent or improper chargebacks can result in a permanent ban.

So the key question is:

If the trader never purchased an account or initiated a chargeback, what triggered this enforcement action?

@LucidTrading — can you clarify the evidence behind this decision?

Account closures should be backed by clear, verifiable reasons.
@ajtradinglucid @TradingLucid

[Tradewithsam @Tradewithsam02]

@theproptruth @tradershyam2414 @initials0ut The published FAQ says transitions happen at the end of an active payout cycle — never mid-cycle. If these accounts were closed before payouts could be requested, how does that fit with the stated process?@FundedNext @fnfutures @galibsyed_ @Jayed_FN

[The Prop Truth @theproptruth]

🚨 $9,900 PROFITS FORFEITED — AND FNFUTURES DISCORD HAS MORE TRADERS REPORTING THE SAME ISSUE

A trader @initials0ut reportedly lost $9,900 in accumulated profits across multiple accounts.

According to trader :

• 15+ Performance Rewards already earned

• Payout requests reportedly triggered account reviews/locks

• Three accounts were closed before payouts could be requested

• The accumulated profits were reportedly forfeited

• Other traders are reportedly raising similar concerns in the FNFutures Discord

The key question: FundedNext’s published rules say transitions happen at the end of an active payout cycle — never mid-cycle.

@FundedNext — why were these accounts closed before the trader could request the payouts?
@galibsyed_ @fnfutures
$9,900 is significant. Traders deserve a clear explanation.

[Tradewithsam @Tradewithsam02]

@propwatchmedia @TradingLucid @TrustedPropHub @ajtradinglucid @TradingLucid

[PropWatch @propwatchmedia]

🚨 ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
WHAT IS GOING ON WITH LUCID TRADING KYC?

I kept seeing traders report the same issue, so I decided to test it myself.

And now my account is showing the exact same “Account Under Review” screen with Lucid saying inconsistencies were found and that the decision is final, with no appeal or further review.

The frustrating part? Traders are reporting different versions of the same problem: some allegedly see this before completing KYC, others are stuck under review for days, while existing traders are now worried about what happens when they eventually reach payout/KYC.

No clear explanation. No meaningful update. No timeline.

Trading days are being wasted, accounts are inaccessible, and traders are left guessing whether their account will actually make it through verification.

@TradingLucid @ajtradinglucid traders deserve answers.

If this is a genuine verification issue, explain it clearly.If there’s a system problem, acknowledge it.
But silence while traders sit locked out is not accountability.

[Tradewithsam @Tradewithsam02]

@theproptruth @Rahulfx111 @JAAVFX1 Your rules prohibit hedging between separate accounts, but the real question is whether this specific case actually meets that definition. Show the evidence and let traders see the basis for the decision. Transparency matters.@seanbaint @GuardianFutures

[The Prop Truth @theproptruth]

🚨 ANOTHER BLUE GUARDIAN PAYOUT DISPUTE — HOW MANY CASES NOW?

Another payout dispute is now public.

According to the trader @JAAVFX1 :

• $2,000 payout rejected for “Self Hedge”

• Blue Guardian says it detected self-hedging across multiple accounts

• Trader says the referenced account had already been breached before the payout request

• Dashboard access is now reportedly blocked

Blue Guardian’s rules do prohibit hedging between separate accounts, so the key question is whether the firm can clearly demonstrate the alleged connection in this specific case.

@GuardianFutures — show the evidence behind the self-hedging finding and explain how the accounts were connected at the time of the payout request.

Rules matter. Evidence matters too. 👀
@seanbaint @BlueGuardiancom
#BlueGuardian #PropFirm #PropTrading

[Tradewithsam @Tradewithsam02]

@theproptruth @ej_harish If your internal review has clear evidence of a violation, explain the exact basis to the trader. If the trader disputes the finding and offers additional verification, why is there no meaningful path to challenge the decision? @BrettSimba @Tradeify