Nexus

NexusXtrade Community, supported by @Dr_musacsk & @faded_propfirm ! 🎁 Weekly giveaways! Join our Discord now:

[Nexus @NexusXtrade]

We're giving away 1 × $10,000 Trading Account!

Want a chance to kick-start your prop trading journey? Here's how to enter:

✅ Follow @Faded_Propfirm
✅ Follow @NexusXtrade & @Dr_musacsk
✅ Like & Repost this post
✅ Join our Discord community
Link in bio announced will in dis

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

🚨 THE5ERS: TRADER QUESTIONS PERMANENT BAN FOLLOWING KYC REJECTION

A trader has raised concerns regarding his recent experience with @the5erstrading, seeking clarification about a permanent restriction on his ability to trade with the firm.

Trader @GoldPipsFG claims that he was previously a verified client of The5ers. However, after losing access to his registered email address, he requested the deletion of his old email account for security reasons.

According to the trader, when he attempted to complete KYC verification again using his new details, his verification was rejected, and he was informed that he could no longer trade with the firm.

WHAT DID THE FIRM SAY?

According to the response shared by the trader, The5ers stated:

"The decision is separate, and it relates to our earlier records."

However, the trader is seeking further clarification about what those previous records contain and why they resulted in a permanent restriction.

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS NEED ANSWERS:

1. What specific issue led to the rejection of the trader's new KYC?
2. Were there any previous compliance concerns or account violations?
3. Did changing the registered email address affect the verification process?
4. Can the Compliance Team provide a clear explanation for the decision?
5. Is there any possibility of a management-level review or appeal?

@the5erstrading, we encourage your management and Compliance Team to review this case and provide further clarification.

If there is a legitimate reason for the decision, explaining it transparently would help the trader understand the situation.

Traders deserve clarity, transparency, and a fair opportunity to understand decisions that affect their trading eligibility.

We would also welcome The5ers' official response.

What is your opinion? Should prop firms provide detailed explanations when permanently restricting a previously verified client?

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

🚨 EQUITY EDGE PAYOUT DISPUTE: TRADER SEEKS CLARITY OVER REJECTED PERFORMANCE FEE

Another payout dispute has been raised involving @EquityEdgeFunded.

Trader @jitendra4tmr6 claims that the firm rejected one of his performance fee requests, citing excessive risk exposure and an alleged violation of its “Full Porting” rule.

WHAT DO THE SHARED SCREENSHOTS SHOW?

- $450.86 performance fee request: Rejected.
- $371.98 performance fee request: Approved.
- The Risk Team reportedly identified a substantial portion of the account's maximum daily drawdown being exposed in a single trade or setup.
- The firm defines Full Porting as concentrating or splitting exposure across positions to utilize most or all of the permitted daily drawdown.

However, the trader disputes the rejection and maintains that he followed the firm's trading rules.

KEY QUESTIONS THAT NEED CLARIFICATION:

1. Which specific trade or setup triggered the alleged Full Porting violation?
2. What percentage of the maximum daily drawdown was exposed?
3. How was the total risk calculated across multiple positions?
4. Was this rule clearly explained to traders before they purchased an account?
5. Why was one performance fee request approved while the other was rejected?

@EquityEdgeFunded, traders deserve transparent and detailed explanations when their performance fee requests are rejected.

If a violation occurred, providing the relevant trade records, risk calculations, and specific rule references would help clarify the situation.

A payout decision should be supported by clear evidence so traders can understand exactly why their request was rejected.

We would also welcome the firm's official response.

Have you experienced a similar payout rejection with Equity Edge? Share your experience in the comments

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

🚨 DIRECT FUNDED: TRADER ALLEGES $500.50 PAYOUT REJECTION OVER UNDISCLOSED TRADING RULES

A trader @TRADEwith_TUNDE has raised concerns about his experience with @Direct_Funded, claiming that his $500.50 payout was rejected despite successfully completing all displayed minimum trading day requirements.

According to the trader:

• Account Size: $25,000
• Account ID: #462824
• Minimum Trading Days: 5/5 (100% completed)
• Reported Profit: $500.50

The trader claims he initially waited one month for payout processing. After requesting his withdrawal, he was informed that processing would take 72 hours.

However, he alleges that the company later clarified that its 72-hour timeline referred to 8 working hours per day, resulting in an additional nine-day wait.

Eventually, his $500.50 payout was rejected for allegedly failing to meet the "Minimum Trading Activity" requirement.

The trader argues that this condition was never displayed on his dashboard, which showed 100% completion of the minimum trading days.

QUESTIONS FOR @DIRECT_FUNDED:

1. Why was the payout rejected despite the dashboard showing 5/5 trading days completed?
2. Where was the minimum trading activity requirement communicated?
3. Why did the payout process reportedly take significantly longer than expected?
4. Will the company review the rejection and provide a clear explanation?

@Trade_Cloud_Hub, as the affiliate manager, please look into this matter and help bring clarity.

Traders deserve transparent rules, consistent communication, and fair payout decisions.

The community is waiting for answers.

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

@AtlasFunded – First Payout Delay & Lack of Transparency

A trader @sukhy_sidhu has reported that their first payout request with @AtlasFunded is still under review, despite being submitted on Monday. The request has now reached the 3-day mark.

After contacting support, the trader received the response shared below, which raises concerns about the lack of a clear payout timeline.

All trading rules have reportedly been followed, and all payout requirements have been met. However, the uncertainty surrounding the payment date is understandably frustrating, especially for a first-time payout.

Traders deserve transparency, clear communication, and timely payouts. Hopefully, @AtlasFunded will provide a clear update and resolve this matter soon.

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

🚨 $10K Payout Request Still Unavailable at Blue Guardian?

• Another trader has raised concerns about the payout process at @BlueGuardiancom.

• @BrandonMangan3 claims he has been unable to submit his $10,000 payout request for more than two weeks.

• According to him, the payout option remained unavailable, and support continued to say that the technical team was investigating the issue.

• However, he says there has been no confirmed fix or meaningful update so far.

• He also reports that other traders in the Blue Guardian Discord are facing similar difficulties.

Blue Guardian needs to address these concerns and provide traders with a clear explanation.@GuardianFutures @seanbaint

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

🚨 $1,227 PAYOUT REJECTED: TRADER SEEKS CLARITY FROM MY FUNDED PERPS

A trader @liohghar claims that My Funded Perps rejected his $1,227 payout request following a review by the firm's Risk Team.

According to the trader, the payout request was submitted on November 4 and rejected on the same day.

ACCOUNT DETAILS:

- Account ID: FP-66612532
- Requested Payout: $1,227
- Payout Request: November 4
- Status: Rejected

WHY WAS THE PAYOUT REJECTED?

According to the rejection explanation shared by the trader, My Funded Perps allegedly identified connections between his account and other accounts through shared devices or networks, which the firm considers a violation of its one-trader-per-account policy.

However, the trader disputes the decision and claims there was a miscommunication between the Support and Risk teams.

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS NEED ANSWERS:

1. Which accounts were allegedly linked?
2. What evidence supports the alleged connection?
3. Was the connection based on a shared IP address, device, or network?
4. Was the trader given an opportunity to clarify the situation?
5. Can the Risk Team provide a detailed explanation for the rejection?

@MyFundedPerps, transparency is essential when it comes to payout decisions. Traders deserve clear explanations and supporting evidence when their withdrawals are rejected.

The trader has reportedly shared the rejection email. It is now important to hear the firm's side of the story.

What do you think? Should prop firms provide detailed evidence whenever they reject a trader's payout?

Share your thoughts below.

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

UPDATE!!! 🚨💙

The issue involving a trader and @EquityEdgeUK has officially been resolved, and the trader's account is BACK ACTIVE! 💙

After reviewing the situation, EquityEdgeUK confirmed that they did not find the trader guilty of posting or trading the signals shared within their community. The team simply needed additional time to complete their review.

A huge appreciation to the entire EquityEdgeUK team for their professionalism, transparency, patience, and commitment to reviewing the matter fairly.

Credit goes to the EE team for taking the time to investigate and bring this matter to a positive conclusion. Their efforts are genuinely appreciated! 👏💙

WE ARE BACK AND ACTIVE LIKE CHIVITA GUYS!!! 😂💙🔥

And yes, the giveaway CONTINUES! 🎁💙

Check the next post for all the details.

THANK YOU, @EquityEdgeUK TEAM! 💙

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

Great to see a fair and positive resolution! 👏 @thefundedroom

Full credit to The Funded Room Risk Team for carefully reviewing the case, acknowledging the error, and reinstating Rajesh’s $50K funded account with its original balance and complete trading history.

This is what professionalism, transparency, and accountability look like. Mistakes can happen, but taking responsibility and ensuring a fair outcome is what truly builds trust.

Glad to see justice served and a positive result for the trader! 🤝

Fair reviews. Real accountability. Trader trust.

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

🚨 OVER TWO WEEKS WITHOUT A PAYOUT — GOAT FUNDED, WHERE IS THE FINAL DECISION?

Another trader @uAirdrop_Hunter has reportedly been left waiting for a payout and a clear response from @GoatFunded.

According to @uAirdrop_Hunter, his payout remained pending for over two weeks before the firm requested a Risk Team verification interview.

Here’s what the trader claims:

• Completed the verification interview on October 20.
• Explained his trading strategy in detail.
• Submitted the requested verification documents.
• Attempted to rejoin the interview after his laptop reportedly shut down.

However, despite completing the requested verification process, the trader claims that more than a week later, he has still received no clear feedback or final decision.

He also says that repeated follow-ups through email and live chat have not resulted in a satisfactory resolution.

@GoatFunded @EdwardXLreal — Could you please clarify the status of this case?

If further verification is required, clear communication is essential. Traders deserve timely updates and a transparent process, especially after complying with all requested verification steps.

Verification should lead to clarity and a final decision — not prolonged uncertainty.

Transparency and accountability are essential to maintaining trader trust.

@GoatFunded @NazGFT @EdwardXLreal

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

Trader Complaint: Delayed Payout and Lack of Communication @thefundedroom

A trader @NetaiRakshit1 has been waiting for their payout for the past three weeks, but payment has still not been received.

Despite repeatedly contacting the support team, the trader has not received any clear response or satisfactory explanation. The only update provided by the Risk Management Team is that the account is "under review," which has been repeated several times without any further clarification.

Additionally, 24 accounts have reportedly been deleted, and this account was subsequently replaced with a withdrawal. However, the Funded Team has not provided any response, and the trader has not received any official email regarding the situation.

The trader is becoming increasingly frustrated due to the lack of communication and the prolonged delay.

The trader deserves a clear explanation, a proper update on the review process, and a confirmed timeline for the pending payout.

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

🚨 EQUITY EDGE: TRADER ALLEGES $1,027 PAYOUT DISPUTE AND ACCOUNT BLOCK

A trader, @olamicryptofx01, has raised concerns regarding @EquityEdgeUK, claiming that his payout was rejected months ago due to an alleged group trading violation, which he strongly denies.

According to the screenshots shared by the trader:

• Account Size: $50,000
• Reported Profit: $1,138.40
• Deduction: -$1,027.00
• Adjustment Date: February 24, 2026
• Account Status: Blocked

The trading history reportedly shows an entry labelled "Balance Reset on Payout Rejection," while the trader's login screen displays a blocked account notification.

The trader claims that his payout remains unpaid, his funded account has been blocked, and he has yet to receive a satisfactory explanation despite waiting for months.

He is now seeking clarification, the release of his pending payout, and the restoration of his funded account.

EQUITY EDGE, THE TRADING COMMUNITY DESERVES CLARITY.

1. What evidence led to the alleged group trading violation?
2. Which accounts or trading activities were identified as linked?
3. Why was $1,027 deducted following the payout rejection?
4. What steps have been taken to address the trader's complaint?

If a violation occurred, the evidence should be clearly explained. If there was a mistake, the trader deserves a fair review and appropriate resolution.

Transparency, accountability, and fair treatment are essential in the prop trading industry.

We look forward to hearing Equity Edge's side of the story.

@EquityEdgeUK

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

🚨 ANOTHER TRADER CLAIMS $14,000 IN LOSSES FOLLOWING GOAT FUNDED ACCOUNT TERMINATIONS

Concerns surrounding @GoatFunded continue to emerge as another trader, @AnTrader1989, publicly shares his experience.

According to the trader, his $100K and $200K accounts were terminated, resulting in an estimated $14,000 in losses.

Here’s what the trader claims:

• GFT allegedly terminated his accounts over suspected coordinated group trading.

• The firm's email reportedly referenced 28 matching trades executed between July 3 and July 15.

• The trader denies participating in copy trading and claims that he executed his trades independently using only his mobile phone.

• He also raises concerns about the consistency and transparency of the firm's group-trading policy enforcement.

This case adds to a growing number of trader complaints involving alleged group-trading violations, account terminations, and disputed payouts.

@GoatFunded — Can you provide clarification on this case and explain how these violations are identified and investigated?

Fair and consistent rule enforcement is essential in the prop trading industry. Traders deserve clear explanations, transparent investigations, and an opportunity to challenge disputed decisions.

The key question remains: Are other traders experiencing similar situations?

@GoatFunded @EdwardXLreal @NazGFT

[Nexus @NexusXtrade]

5 × 50k account successfully distributed in our discord server you can join discord and win free account

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

🚨 UPCOMERS UNDER SCRUTINY: $12,955 PAYOUT DISPUTE – TRADER QUESTIONS WITHDRAWAL DENIAL

@_featherstones has publicly raised concerns about an alleged payout dispute with @upcomers_com, claiming that approximately $12,955.42 in trading profits has been withheld following allegations of prohibited trading activity.

The dispute raises important questions about the firm's trading rules, payout review process, and the evidence used to justify withdrawal denials.

WHAT THE TRADER CLAIMS

According to @_featherstones:

- His withdrawal was rejected over alleged group trading or a prohibited trading strategy.
- He maintains that he was trading independently and simply scaling out of positions to secure partial profits.
- He strongly denies engaging in any prohibited trading activity.
- He claims that his earned profits remain unpaid and that he has not received a satisfactory resolution.

WHAT UPCOMERS' EMAIL REPORTedly STATES

According to the screenshots shared publicly, Upcomers' Payouts team reviewed account #716362 and provided the following details:

- Review period: October 5 – November 5, 2026
- Total trades reviewed: 184
- Reported net trading result: +$12,955.42

The firm reportedly stated that its review identified prohibited trading strategies based on the account's trading history.

However, the specific trades and detailed evidence supporting this conclusion remain central to the dispute.

FIVE QUESTIONS UPCOMERS NEEDS TO ADDRESS

@upcomers_com

1. What exact trading strategy was identified as prohibited?
2. Which specific trades, order IDs, and timestamps support this allegation?
3. Does scaling out of a position to secure partial profits violate the firm's published trading rules?
4. Which specific rule clause justifies withholding the entire $12,955.42 payout?
5. Was the trader provided with a transparent appeal process and an opportunity to challenge the findings?

TRANSPARENCY MATTERS

A payout rejection involving nearly $13,000 deserves a clear and evidence-based explanation.

If prohibited trading activity was identified, the firm should be able to explain exactly what happened, which rules were violated, and how the decision was reached.

At the same time, the trader's claims should also be assessed against the complete trading history and applicable rules.

We welcome an official response from Upcomers and any additional supporting evidence from the trader.

The issue is not simply whether a payout was rejected. The real question is whether the decision was supported by clear evidence, consistently applied rules, and a fair review process.

Traders deserve transparency. Prop firms deserve evidence-based criticism. Both sides deserve a fair opportunity to present their case.

[DOCTOR G.U 💊💊 @Dr_musacsk]

Something BIG is coming from
AquaFunded! 👀🔥

Perpetuals, funded by @AquaFunded
Coming sooner than you think

Competing for $1M in funded accounts on @aquaperps. 5 accounts every day, plus the top 60 overall at launch. First place takes $100K. Join me: https://t.co/VVEN1a7Uol

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

🚨 THE FUNDED ROOM UNDER SCRUTINY: TRADERS SEEK CLARITY ON PAYOUT DISPUTES AND ACCOUNT TERMINATIONS

@thetraderoom_ @thefundedroom

Since its launch, The Funded Room (TFR) has positioned itself as a prop trading firm focused on transparency, real execution, and blockchain-based payouts.

However, several trader-reported complaints between November 6–10 have raised concerns regarding payout reviews, alleged toxic trading violations, and account terminations.

Here are the cases traders are bringing forward:

🔴 1. $20K ACCOUNT – SWARNA REDDY'S PAYOUT DISPUTE

Trader @SwarnaReddy2729 claims that their payout review remained pending for approximately three weeks.

According to the trader, TFR stated that the account had breached its rules on October 2 due to an alleged toxic trading pattern.

However, the trader disputes this decision, claiming the daily loss limit was $3,303 while the reported loss was $3,171.

The trader is seeking clarification regarding the alleged floating-loss calculation and the specific rule violation.

The reported outcome included an account ban and a fee refund.

🔴 2. $50K ACCOUNT – RAJESH SAHFV'S HFT TERMINATION

Trader @RajeshSahfv reports that account #247519 was terminated over an alleged second High-Frequency Trading (HFT) violation.

According to the trader:

- The first warning was issued on October 28.
- The warning reportedly referenced four XAUUSD orders placed within three minutes.
- The November 7 termination email allegedly referenced the same October 28 trading activity.

The trader questions how the same activity could constitute a second violation.

Key question: Can TFR provide the exact order IDs, timestamps, and evidence supporting the alleged second violation?

🔴 3. $20K PAYOUT REJECTION – COMMUNITY-REPORTED CASE

Prop Firm Edge and Prop World News have reportedly highlighted a separate case involving a rejected $20K payout.

There are also community reports of traders waiting approximately three weeks for payout decisions.

However, the identity of the trader and the complete supporting evidence have not yet been independently verified.

🔴 4. BROADER CONCERNS – PAYOUT REVIEWS AND TOXIC TRADING CLASSIFICATIONS

Additional traders have reportedly raised concerns about:

- Allegedly unclear or unexpected trading rules.
- Toxic trading classifications.
- Extended payout review periods.
- Account terminations around payout requests.
- Insufficient explanations of alleged rule violations.

These reports do not establish wrongdoing by the firm. However, they raise legitimate questions that deserve clear and evidence-based responses.

QUESTIONS FOR THE FUNDED ROOM

@thetraderoom_

1. How many disputed payout cases have been reviewed using publicly available trade-by-trade evidence?
2. Can TFR publish the relevant floating-loss calculations and exact rule clause in Swarna Reddy's case?
3. Can the firm clarify the warning and termination timeline in Rajesh Sahfv's HFT case?
4. What is the standard timeframe for completing payout reviews?
5. Does TFR have a formal appeal process for traders who dispute account breaches or payout rejections?

MAYANK RAJ AND THE TFR TEAM: THE TRADING COMMUNITY IS LOOKING FOR CLARITY, CONSISTENCY, AND TRANSPARENT ANSWERS.

We invite traders who have experienced similar situations to share their cases responsibly.

Please include:

- X handle (optional)
- Account size
- Payout amount
- Relevant dates
- Reason provided for rejection or termination
- Supporting screenshots or documentation

The objective is not to attack any firm or make unverified accusations. It is to encourage transparency, accountability, and fair treatment across the prop trading industry.

Traders deserve clear explanations. Firms deserve fair criticism based on evidence. Transparency must work both ways.

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

5 × 50k account delivered that's great opportunity to our traders
A massive giveaway launch soon be ready

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

🚀 SOMETHING BIG IS COMING FROM AQUAFUNDED! 👀🔥

The future of trading is evolving!

⚡ PERPETUALS, POWERED BY @AquaFunded

Get ready to compete for $1,000,000 in funded accounts on @AquaPerps!

🏆 5 funded accounts awarded every day
💰 Top 60 overall performers rewarded at launch
🥇 First-place winner takes home a massive $100K funded account!

The countdown is on. The opportunity is real. Are you ready to compete?

🔥 Join the competition now:
https://t.co/dWCQO8RALU

Trade smart. Compete hard. Get funded. 🚀

[PropFirmJustice @Faded_Propfirm]

🚨 TRADER @kingposhi CLAIMS @QTFUNDED REJECTED HIS $1,800 APPROVED PAYOUT AFTER SIX MONTHS!

Imagine waiting SIX MONTHS for a payout that you claim was already approved, only to receive a rejection email out of nowhere.

According to the trader, his $1,800 payout had been approved, but after months of waiting, @QtFunded suddenly rejected it.

If these claims are accurate, this raises serious concerns about payout transparency and trader trust.

Traders deserve clear communication, fair treatment, and accountability from prop firms.

The trading community deserves answers.