Faded FX

22Y/O Trader | 4+ Years Experience 📈
SMC-Based Counter-Trend Trader
Trader Support & Community 🤝
Market & Prop Firm Content
Discord Community 💻

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

🚨 Trader Claims Payout Rejected Over Copy-Trading Allegation @Rachit51234949

A trader says he purchased a $50,000 Blue Guardian Instant CFD account on August 31, 2026 and generated around $2,000 in profit through his own trading.

According to the trader, he requested a payout on September 25, 2026. Just 2–3 hours later, he received an email stating that his account was being closed and his payout was rejected due to an alleged copy-trading violation.

The trader strongly denies copy trading and says he has never copied anyone’s trades. He claims that he trades independently using his own EMA-based strategy, personal market analysis, and risk-management approach.

The trader says he is confused by the decision and is asking for clear evidence showing what trades allegedly matched another trader and what specifically led to the copy-trading allegation.

📌 Account ID: 545989

He has shared supporting evidence with this post and says he is willing to provide any additional information required.

Hopefully, @BlueGuardian can review the case and provide the trader with a clear explanation and the evidence behind the decision.

A trader deserves the opportunity to understand and respond to an allegation that resulted in the rejection of his payout.
@Aliatcx @seanbaint

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

A trader claims that @Tradeify permanently restricted their $25K Select account before they had even placed a single trade.

According to the trader, their KYC verification was declined, and they were later told that the account did not comply with Tradeify’s Terms of Service.

The main concern is simple: the trader says they were never told which specific rule or requirement was violated.

If an account is permanently restricted without any trading activity, shouldn’t the trader be provided with a clear explanation and the specific TOS violation?

The trader is asking for transparency and a proper review of the decision.
@arpit6112

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

A trader claims that they worked with @fundingpips for nearly 1.5 years before their account was terminated on June 4, 2026, over alleged copy/reverse trading.

According to the trader, the evidence provided by FundingPips does not match their actual trades, and they deny engaging in copy or coordinated trading.

The trader is asking @fundingpips to review the case again and provide clear, verifiable evidence supporting the allegation, including the relevant trades, timestamps, and matching identifiers.

If the evidence does not establish the alleged activity, the decision deserves another review.
@syed_qaim12

[Faded FX @Faded_Forex]

@fundingpips you are great firm please looking into this case

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

A trader claims that @FundingPips applied a CID rule violation to his account even though he did not breach any trading rule.

He says he was a 21-year-old student who saved $1,000 through part-time work and was just 0.2% away from reaching $10K funding when the decision was made.

According to the trader, no clear evidence was provided to show what exactly triggered the CID rule.

He is asking @FundingPips to review the case again and provide the specific evidence behind the decision.
@hadifx_trader

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

A trader claims that @FundingPips applied a CID rule violation to his account even though he did not breach any trading rule.

He says he was a 21-year-old student who saved $1,000 through part-time work and was just 0.2% away from reaching $10K funding when the decision was made.

According to the trader, no clear evidence was provided to show what exactly triggered the CID rule.

He is asking @FundingPips to review the case again and provide the specific evidence behind the decision.
@hadifx_trader

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

A trader claims @FundingPips banned his account over alleged CID matching, but says the evidence provided to him was incomplete.

According to the trader, the logs did not show the timestamp, matched identifier, IP details, or the specific account/device allegedly linked to him.

What raises an additional question is the log showing “Client Web Build 5830.” The trader says he only traded through MT5 and never used the web terminal or MT5 through a browser.

If the CID match is the reason for the ban, the trader believes he should be shown the actual evidence so he can understand and respond to the allegation.

A CID violation should be supported by clear, verifiable evidence — not just an unexplained log entry.

He is asking @FundingPips to conduct a proper review and clarify exactly what triggered the decision.
@NitinBhatt1234

[Faded FX @Faded_Forex]

@fundingpips you are a good firm please looking into

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

🚨 FUNDINGPIPS — DAY 80

A trader claims FundingPips has changed its explanation regarding his alleged breach.

The original claim reportedly focused on Account #11176642 and a CID violation. The trader says he provided MT5 logs, Dupikium confirmation, and evidence that FundingPips moderators had previously said copiers were allowed.

After 21 days and public pressure on X, he says FundingPips is now pointing to a different account, #10806044, allegedly accessed from the same device as 15 other accounts.

❓ Why wasn’t this evidence included originally?

❓ Why was evidence initially withheld?

❓ Why did the explanation change after the trader challenged the first claim?

If the evidence was clear from the beginning, why does the explanation keep changing?
@Fundingpips @Khldfx @traderabhiii

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

🚨 FUNDINGPIPS — DAY 80

A trader claims FundingPips has changed its explanation regarding his alleged breach.

The original claim reportedly focused on Account #11176642 and a CID violation. The trader says he provided MT5 logs, Dupikium confirmation, and evidence that FundingPips moderators had previously said copiers were allowed.

After 21 days and public pressure on X, he says FundingPips is now pointing to a different account, #10806044, allegedly accessed from the same device as 15 other accounts.

❓ Why wasn’t this evidence included originally?

❓ Why was evidence initially withheld?

❓ Why did the explanation change after the trader challenged the first claim?

If the evidence was clear from the beginning, why does the explanation keep changing?
@Fundingpips @Khldfx @traderabhiii

[Faded FX @Faded_Forex]

Amazing @Pipstonecapital

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

Disciplined execution leads to real payouts. 🚀
At @Pipstonecapital, performance meets real reward. Traders who complete our evaluation process are seeing their discipline turn into prompt, consistent payouts.
Shoutout to our recent funded traders on their confirmed profit splits:
👏 Vishvjit Maurya — $500.00
👏 Pintu Kumar Ravidas — $118.40
👏 Abhay Makwana — $266.40 USDT
⚡ Fast, Reliable Execution:
* Uninterrupted payout processing, even through the weekend.
* Multiple payouts delivered in under 60 minutes.
* Fastest payout recorded in just 24 minutes.
With high profit splits reaching up to 100%, clear rules, and rapid execution, Pipstone Capital remains committed to supporting disciplined traders worldwide.
Congratulations to everyone hitting their targets. Keep managing risk and executing with consistency!
👉 @Pipstonecapital

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

They doing scam in industry be aware they changes policy because they can't pay you no response no reason explain no proofs share no evidence just 3 month hard work waste because they can't pay
@fherofutures @itsdrdollar @parcefx @FundedHeroX @PropFirmCulture @PropFirmsGuru

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

🚨 WARNING TO PROP TRADERS

A trader claims @AlphaCapitalUK denied his $4,160 payout and permanently banned him over an alleged CID match with a trader he says he DOES NOT KNOW.

He claims he used only:

• His own phone
• His own Wi-Fi/network
• His own account
• No shared device or network

The big question: What evidence established the alleged CID connection?

Traders deserve transparency when a $4,160 payout and account are at stake.
@dsakjh3432s21_
🧵 More details below.

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

🚨 $10,000 PAYOUT REJECTED

Mythic Storyteller says my $10K payout was rejected by @GuardianFutures.

I have never hedged or coordinated trades with anyone, and I have never shared or copied trades across accounts.

My complete trade log is attached for transparency.

@GuardianFutures — I respectfully ask you to review the decision and provide the specific evidence or rule violation that led to this rejection.

If there’s a violation, please show it. If not, please reconsider the payout.
@story_mythy

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

Happy birthday bro
Congratulations to you for this Payout I hope you will receive
@Kedar_Shinde22

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

@AlphaCapitalUK Most welcome

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

🚨 Trader claims @AlphaCapitalUK rejected his payout again.

His first $2,200 payout was rejected for exceeding the 1% risk limit, which he acknowledged.

This time, he claims he requested a $3,600 payout, stayed within the 1% risk limit, avoided news trading, and followed the rules.

Yet the payout was rejected again — this time over an alleged CID/device violation involving multiple ACG accounts.

@FXNG, please review this case again. If there’s a genuine violation, provide the original evidence and clearly explain the reason. If not, the decision should be reviewed fairly.

Traders deserve transparency and evidence when payouts are rejected.
@Only1MansaCrypt

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

🚨 $7,000 PAYOUT REJECTED — $26,000 TOTAL BALANCE PROHIBITED

A trader claims that @GuardianFutures rejected his $7,000 payout and prohibited access to his total $26,000 balance, alleging hedging/coordinated trading.

He states he has never hedged or coordinated trades with anyone.

If there is evidence supporting the decision, it should be provided and reviewed transparently.

I’m asking @GuardianFutures to review the case again and provide the original evidence behind the decision.

Traders deserve a fair and transparent review process.
@ambitiousmind06

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

Congratulations to you Brother 🔥🤜
@SantanuKDX @PropFirmCulture 🔥🎯

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

Disciplined execution leads to real payouts. 🚀
At @Pipstonecapital, performance meets real reward. Traders who complete our evaluation process are seeing their discipline turn into prompt, consistent payouts.
Shoutout to our recent funded traders on their confirmed profit splits:
👏 Vishvjit Maurya — $500.00
👏 Pintu Kumar Ravidas — $118.40
👏 Abhay Makwana — $266.40 USDT
⚡ Fast, Reliable Execution:
* Uninterrupted payout processing, even through the weekend.
* Multiple payouts delivered in under 60 minutes.
* Fastest payout recorded in just 24 minutes.
With high profit splits reaching up to 100%, clear rules, and rapid execution, Pipstone Capital remains committed to supporting disciplined traders worldwide.
Congratulations to everyone hitting their targets. Keep managing risk and executing with consistency!
👉 @Pipstonecapital

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

Happy birthday bro hope for good for you @Ranahamza547373

[FundYourTrading @FundYourTrading]

The exact countdown till launch can now be seen on our website https://t.co/9M6Z4ZLoX9 🚀

Get ready traders…