PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT

𝗗𝗠 𝗬𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘
No sponsors. No paid promotions. Just documented prop firm disputes, payout denials & trader experiences.
#PROPFIRM #PROPFIRMSCAM

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

🚨@fundingpips @Khldfx @ErkanOriginal 🚨
𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀, 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀.
A growing number of traders have reported:
❌ 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀
❌ 𝗣𝗮𝘆𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗹𝘀
❌ 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲 "𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴" 𝗼𝗿 "𝗖𝗜𝗗" 𝗯𝗮𝗻𝘀
❌ 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.
❌ 𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝗫 𝗼𝗿 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱, 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻, 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗹𝘆.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀 𝗺𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗻'𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹-𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘀.

𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗜'𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿-𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀.
𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗗𝗠 𝗺𝗲.
𝗜𝗳 𝗻𝗼 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗲𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹.

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

⁉️ A question for the prop trading community:

Most traders don't buy just one challenge. We buy multiple accounts because we know only a fraction will become funded. That's the risk we knowingly accept.

But here's my question:
If a firm ultimately decides it doesn't want to work with a trader, and it also refuses to provide evidence for the alleged rule violation, is it reasonable to expect the trader to simply accept the loss?

If the firm won't provide proof to justify the decision, wouldn't refunding the challenge fees be the fairer outcome?

If evidence exists, why not share it and put the matter to rest?
If no evidence is shared, how is a trader supposed to know the decision was fair?

Isn't transparency the foundation of trust in the prop industry?

Curious to hear what other traders think. Should firms either provide clear evidence of a breach or, if they're unwilling to continue the relationship without substantiating the claim, consider refunding the challenge fees?

@fundingpips @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

⁉️ A question for the prop trading community:

Most traders don't buy just one challenge. We buy multiple accounts because we know only a fraction will become funded. That's the risk we knowingly accept.

But here's my question:
If a firm ultimately decides it doesn't want to work with a trader, and it also refuses to provide evidence for the alleged rule violation, is it reasonable to expect the trader to simply accept the loss?

If the firm won't provide proof to justify the decision, wouldn't refunding the challenge fees be the fairer outcome?

If evidence exists, why not share it and put the matter to rest?
If no evidence is shared, how is a trader supposed to know the decision was fair?

Isn't transparency the foundation of trust in the prop industry?

Curious to hear what other traders think. Should firms either provide clear evidence of a breach or, if they're unwilling to continue the relationship without substantiating the claim, consider refunding the challenge fees?

@fundingpips @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal

[THE ANONYMOUS TRADER 🇮🇳 @theanonymous_IN]

TO @fundingpips @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal ,

Traders don't buy just one challenge. Most of us invest in multiple accounts, knowing that many will fail before one or two become funded. That's the business model, and we accept that risk.

What we don't accept is this:

If I genuinely breached your rules, show the evidence.
If you don't want me as a trader, refund every challenge fee I've invested with your firm so I can move elsewhere.

If you provide genuine evidence that I violated your rules, I'll stop posting about this case and remove my posts.

Until then, I'll keep asking the same question:

Where is the proof? of breach for my 12289301 account

[THE ANONYMOUS TRADER 🇮🇳 @theanonymous_IN]

TO @fundingpips @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal ,

Traders don't buy just one challenge. Most of us invest in multiple accounts, knowing that many will fail before one or two become funded. That's the business model, and we accept that risk.

What we don't accept is this:

If I genuinely breached your rules, show the evidence.
If you don't want me as a trader, refund every challenge fee I've invested with your firm so I can move elsewhere.

If you provide genuine evidence that I violated your rules, I'll stop posting about this case and remove my posts.

Until then, I'll keep asking the same question:

Where is the proof? of breach for my 12289301 account

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

@theanonymous_IN : Here's a CID violation case. Can you clarify?

@fundingpips : ... ( Silence 🤐)

@theanonymous_IN : If you can't discuss it, can you at least share the evidence with the trader?

@fundingpips : ... ( Silence 🤐)

@fundingpips (under a positive post): Thanks for your support! ❤️

@theanonymous_IN : So you can reply... just not to unresolved cases.

Apparently, even acknowledging a case—or sharing the evidence with the trader—is asking for too much
@Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

@RonitMore0027 @fundingpips @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal So post it bro

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

🤡 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗕𝘂𝘆 𝗮 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁
@fundingpips @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal
𝗣𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗣𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝟭 ✅
𝗣𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗣𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝟮 ✅
𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗮 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 😃
📩 "𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗗𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗜𝗗 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱."
❓ "𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗜 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲?"
📩 "𝗗𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝗰𝘆, 𝘄𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻'𝘁 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘁."
📩 "𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹."
🎭 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗱.

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

@fundingpips @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal
𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘 #𝟬𝟬𝟵 @MaxamedNuu60049

FALSE DEVICE SHARING/CID ALLEGATIONS

𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿'𝘀 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺
• Claims FundingPips permanently closed all of his accounts.
• States he was accused of violating the Shared Device ID (CID) policy.
• Claims FundingPips refused to provide supporting evidence despite repeated requests.
• Shared screenshots of the account closure notice and follow-up support emails.

𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀' 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲
• Stated the trader's Device ID matched another registered user.
• Said a Device ID match may indicate, among other possibilities: • Shared device/system access
• Coordinated or connected trading
• Third-party involvement • Other practices inconsistent with independent account operation
• Permanently terminated the accounts.
• Declined to provide additional internal details, supporting documents, or specific evidence.
• Stated the decision was final and could not be reviewed or escalated.

𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲
• The trader disputes the allegation and requested supporting evidence. • FundingPips maintained that it was not authorized to disclose additional internal details, supporting documents, or specific evidence beyond its correspondence. • The decision remained final without further explanation according to the shared emails.

⚠️ 𝗔𝗟𝗘𝗥𝗧: 𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗮 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀, 𝗮𝘁 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺.

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

@RonitMore0027 @fundingpips @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal Why didn't you post it

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

@theanonymous_IN : Here's a CID violation case. Can you clarify?

@fundingpips : ... ( Silence 🤐)

@theanonymous_IN : If you can't discuss it, can you at least share the evidence with the trader?

@fundingpips : ... ( Silence 🤐)

@fundingpips (under a positive post): Thanks for your support! ❤️

@theanonymous_IN : So you can reply... just not to unresolved cases.

Apparently, even acknowledging a case—or sharing the evidence with the trader—is asking for too much
@Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

@fundingpips @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal
📂 𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘 #𝟬𝟬𝟮 – @theanonymous_IN

FALSE DEVICE SHARING/CID ALLEGATION

𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿'𝘀 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺

👉Claims FundingPips falsely accused him of a CID (device-sharing) violation.
👉States he traded only from his own device and denies sharing access.
👉Says he offered to provide his MT5 login records for review.
👉Claims FundingPips refused to review them or provide evidence supporting the allegation.
👉Notes he had previously managed a $300k funded account with FundingPips without similar issues.

𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀' 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲
👉States its review concluded that the Device ID linked to the trader matched the Device ID of another registered user.
👉States it cannot disclose the other user's identity, Device ID, or specific technical identifiers due to privacy, security, and data protection reasons.
👉States the review is complete and the decision is final, with no further appeal available.
𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲
👉States he was not asking for the other trader's identity or KYC details.
👉Says he only requested:
alleged linked account number.
date and time of the alleged CID violation.
Device ID that FundingPips claims matched his
👉Argues these details are necessary to understand and respond to the allegation.
👉Claims FundingPips continued to refuse to provide them.

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

🎯 𝗡𝗲𝘄 @fundingpips 𝗚𝗮𝗺𝗲:
"𝗚𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘅 𝗔 𝗩𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻!"

@EricJhairF05 : "𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲?"
@fundingpips : "𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘅 𝗔."
@EricJhairF05 : "𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘅 𝗔?"
@fundingpips : "𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘅 𝗔."
@EricJhairF05 : "𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗜 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲?"
@fundingpips : "𝗡𝗼. 𝗣𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘅 𝗔."

🎭 𝗗𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘆: 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲.

🤡 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘅 𝗔 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗩𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝘁...
𝗬𝗼𝘂'𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲.
🎭 𝗔 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗕𝘆 @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

🎯 𝗡𝗲𝘄 @fundingpips 𝗚𝗮𝗺𝗲:
"𝗚𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘅 𝗔 𝗩𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻!"

@EricJhairF05 : "𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲?"
@fundingpips : "𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘅 𝗔."
@EricJhairF05 : "𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘅 𝗔?"
@fundingpips : "𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘅 𝗔."
@EricJhairF05 : "𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗜 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲?"
@fundingpips : "𝗡𝗼. 𝗣𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘅 𝗔."

🎭 𝗗𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘆: 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲.

🤡 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘅 𝗔 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗩𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗿𝘁...
𝗬𝗼𝘂'𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲.
🎭 𝗔 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗕𝘆 @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

@fundingpips @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal
📂 𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘 #𝟬𝟬𝟰 – @EricJhairF05

FALSE APPENDIX A RULE BREACH

𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿'𝘀 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺

• Claims FundingPips withheld his approved $200k Master account under Appendix A.
• States he successfully completed both evaluation phases while trading manually.
• Claims FundingPips did not specify which rule was allegedly violated.
• Requested evidence, including trade IDs, server logs, calculations, or IP/device data supporting the decision.
• Filed a formal appeal and requested a senior review.
𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀' 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲
• Stated the account did not meet Appendix A requirements during the final compliance review.
• Stated they cannot disclose specific technical evidence, internal review methods, or additional compliance details.
• Rejected the appeal, stating the decision is final and will not be reconsidered.
𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲
• The trader states FundingPips did not identify the specific Appendix A rule allegedly violated.
• FundingPips declined to provide the requested technical evidence or additional details and upheld the decision after the requested senior review.

⚠️I𝗳 𝗮 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗮𝘁 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁, 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

🤡 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗕𝘂𝘆 𝗮 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁
@fundingpips @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal
𝗣𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗣𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝟭 ✅
𝗣𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗣𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝟮 ✅
𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗮 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 😃
📩 "𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗗𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗜𝗗 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱."
❓ "𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗜 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲?"
📩 "𝗗𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝗰𝘆, 𝘄𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻'𝘁 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘁."
📩 "𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹."
🎭 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗱.

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

@fundingpips @Khldfx @ErkanOriginal https://t.co/hpqY3ehvZH

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

@fundingpips @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal
📄 𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘 #𝟬𝟭𝟬 @michael_ek84103

𝗙𝗔𝗟𝗦𝗘 𝗗𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗖𝗘 𝗦𝗛𝗔𝗥𝗜𝗡𝗚/𝗖𝗜𝗗 𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦

𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿'𝘀 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺
• Claims he successfully passed both Phase 1 and Phase 2.
• States his account was later closed for an alleged Shared Device ID (CID) violation.
• States he never logged into another person's account on that device.
• Requested the identity of the alleged matching account and supporting evidence.

𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀' 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲
• Stated it could not disclose details about the other user due to its privacy and confidentiality obligations.
• Did not provide the requested account information or supporting evidence.
• Maintained its position.

𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲
• The trader disputes the allegation and requested evidence supporting the Shared Device ID claim.
• According to the shared emails, FundingPips declined to provide the requested details, citing privacy and confidentiality obligations.

⚠️ 𝗔𝗟𝗘𝗥𝗧: 𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗮 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀, 𝗮𝘁 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺.

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

🚨@fundingpips @Khldfx @ErkanOriginal 🚨
𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀, 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀.
A growing number of traders have reported:
❌ 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀
❌ 𝗣𝗮𝘆𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗹𝘀
❌ 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲 "𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴" 𝗼𝗿 "𝗖𝗜𝗗" 𝗯𝗮𝗻𝘀
❌ 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.
❌ 𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝗫 𝗼𝗿 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱, 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻, 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗹𝘆.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀 𝗺𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗻'𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹-𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘀.

𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗜'𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿-𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀.
𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗗𝗠 𝗺𝗲.
𝗜𝗳 𝗻𝗼 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗲𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹.

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

@trustedprophub @Maventrading @traderjon Glad to see you calling for accountability here.

Now apply the exact same standard to @fundingpips .

If allegations against @Maventrading deserve attention, so do allegations against @fundingpips .

Consistency is what builds credibility.

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

🚨@fundingpips @Khldfx @ErkanOriginal 🚨
𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀, 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀.
A growing number of traders have reported:
❌ 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀
❌ 𝗣𝗮𝘆𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗹𝘀
❌ 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲 "𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴" 𝗼𝗿 "𝗖𝗜𝗗" 𝗯𝗮𝗻𝘀
❌ 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.
❌ 𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝗫 𝗼𝗿 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱, 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻, 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗹𝘆.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀 𝗺𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗻'𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹-𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘀.

𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗜'𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿-𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀.
𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗗𝗠 𝗺𝗲.
𝗜𝗳 𝗻𝗼 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗲𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹.

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

Funny how "serious allegations" only become serious when they're about firms other than @fundingpips .

I'm not defending @Maventrading . I'm questioning your consistency.

Whenever @fundingpips is involved, it's mostly silence. Yet you have no problem praising or defending them.

If you're going to ignore traders raising concerns about @fundingpips , at least stop acting like you're an independent voice for traders.

Traders expect unbiased reporting—not selective reporting.

Consistency builds credibility. Selective coverage destroys it.

[Trusted Prop Hub @trustedprophub]

These are serious allegations on @Maventrading 👀

According to the trader, he wasn’t just restricted from buying new accounts, he also claims his Discord access was removed and his payout certificate posts were deleted.

I spoke with @traderjon , and Maven’s position is that they do not discuss individual account decisions publicly and that traders should contact support.

I respect that policy.

However, the question remains the same:

If the trader has already contacted support multiple times and the only response is “this is a final decision,” without explaining why, how is the trader supposed to understand what happened?

I’m not asking Maven to disclose confidential information publicly. I’m simply saying that, where possible, traders deserve enough clarity to understand why such a decision was made. Better communication would prevent unnecessary speculation from both the trader and the community.

#Trustedprophub ✍🏼

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

I've seen multiple public cases where traders were initially told by @fundingpips thet the evidence couldn't be shared due to "privacy," and then details appeared after the case gained traction on X. That's why I question the consistency. If privacy is the reason, it should apply equally whether a post gets 10 views or 100,000.
I have covered many cases on my page

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

@fundingpips @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal
📂 𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘 #𝟬𝟬𝟰 – @EricJhairF05

FALSE APPENDIX A RULE BREACH

𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿'𝘀 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺

• Claims FundingPips withheld his approved $200k Master account under Appendix A.
• States he successfully completed both evaluation phases while trading manually.
• Claims FundingPips did not specify which rule was allegedly violated.
• Requested evidence, including trade IDs, server logs, calculations, or IP/device data supporting the decision.
• Filed a formal appeal and requested a senior review.
𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀' 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲
• Stated the account did not meet Appendix A requirements during the final compliance review.
• Stated they cannot disclose specific technical evidence, internal review methods, or additional compliance details.
• Rejected the appeal, stating the decision is final and will not be reconsidered.
𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲
• The trader states FundingPips did not identify the specific Appendix A rule allegedly violated.
• FundingPips declined to provide the requested technical evidence or additional details and upheld the decision after the requested senior review.

⚠️I𝗳 𝗮 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗮𝘁 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁, 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

🤡 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗫

In multiple documented CID/Shared Device ID disputes, traders report being told that the supporting evidence cannot be shared due to privacy, confidentiality, or internal policies.
Yet when some of these cases gain attention on X, screenshots or technical details are shared publicly to defend the firm's position.

If the evidence can be shared publicly after a post goes viral, why couldn't it be shared privately with the trader during the appeal?

Every trader deserves the opportunity to understand the allegation against them and respond to it before being left with a "decision final."

Transparency shouldn't depend on whether a case trends on X. It should be part of the process from the beginning.

@fundingpips @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

🚨@fundingpips @Khldfx @ErkanOriginal 🚨
𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀, 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀.
A growing number of traders have reported:
❌ 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀
❌ 𝗣𝗮𝘆𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗹𝘀
❌ 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲 "𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴" 𝗼𝗿 "𝗖𝗜𝗗" 𝗯𝗮𝗻𝘀
❌ 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.
❌ 𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝗫 𝗼𝗿 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱, 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻, 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗹𝘆.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀 𝗺𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗻'𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹-𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘀.

𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗜'𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿-𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀.
𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗗𝗠 𝗺𝗲.
𝗜𝗳 𝗻𝗼 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗲𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹.

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

@fundingpips @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal
𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘆:
❌ 𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗮𝘀𝗸𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝘁.
✅ 𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝗫 𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗮𝗹.
𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 "𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝗰𝘆."

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

🚨@fundingpips @Khldfx @ErkanOriginal 🚨
𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀, 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀.
A growing number of traders have reported:
❌ 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀
❌ 𝗣𝗮𝘆𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗹𝘀
❌ 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲 "𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴" 𝗼𝗿 "𝗖𝗜𝗗" 𝗯𝗮𝗻𝘀
❌ 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.
❌ 𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝗫 𝗼𝗿 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱, 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻, 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗹𝘆.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀 𝗺𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗻'𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹-𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘀.

𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗜'𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿-𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀.
𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗗𝗠 𝗺𝗲.
𝗜𝗳 𝗻𝗼 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗲𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹.

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

🤡 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗣𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗮 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲
@fundingpips @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal
💰 𝗣𝗮𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 ✅
📈 𝗣𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗣𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝟭 ✅
📈 𝗣𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗣𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝟮 ✅
🥳 "𝗜'𝗺 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱!"

📩 "𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗗𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗜𝗗 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱."
❓ "𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲? 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁? 𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗜 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲?"
📩 "𝗪𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻'𝘁 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝗰𝘆."
📩 "𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹."

🎭 𝗚𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿.

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

@fundingpips @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal
📄 𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘 #𝟬𝟭𝟬 @michael_ek84103

𝗙𝗔𝗟𝗦𝗘 𝗗𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗖𝗘 𝗦𝗛𝗔𝗥𝗜𝗡𝗚/𝗖𝗜𝗗 𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦

𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿'𝘀 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺
• Claims he successfully passed both Phase 1 and Phase 2.
• States his account was later closed for an alleged Shared Device ID (CID) violation.
• States he never logged into another person's account on that device.
• Requested the identity of the alleged matching account and supporting evidence.

𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀' 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲
• Stated it could not disclose details about the other user due to its privacy and confidentiality obligations.
• Did not provide the requested account information or supporting evidence.
• Maintained its position.

𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲
• The trader disputes the allegation and requested evidence supporting the Shared Device ID claim.
• According to the shared emails, FundingPips declined to provide the requested details, citing privacy and confidentiality obligations.

⚠️ 𝗔𝗟𝗘𝗥𝗧: 𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗮 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀, 𝗮𝘁 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺.

[PROP FIRM SCAM REPORT @propscamReport]

@fundingpips @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal
📄 𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘 #𝟬𝟭𝟬 @michael_ek84103

𝗙𝗔𝗟𝗦𝗘 𝗗𝗘𝗩𝗜𝗖𝗘 𝗦𝗛𝗔𝗥𝗜𝗡𝗚/𝗖𝗜𝗗 𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦

𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿'𝘀 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺
• Claims he successfully passed both Phase 1 and Phase 2.
• States his account was later closed for an alleged Shared Device ID (CID) violation.
• States he never logged into another person's account on that device.
• Requested the identity of the alleged matching account and supporting evidence.

𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀' 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲
• Stated it could not disclose details about the other user due to its privacy and confidentiality obligations.
• Did not provide the requested account information or supporting evidence.
• Maintained its position.

𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲
• The trader disputes the allegation and requested evidence supporting the Shared Device ID claim.
• According to the shared emails, FundingPips declined to provide the requested details, citing privacy and confidentiality obligations.

⚠️ 𝗔𝗟𝗘𝗥𝗧: 𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗮 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀, 𝗮𝘁 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰 𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺.