The Prop Times

Covering the prop firm industry.
News • Alerts • Payouts • Investigations • Scam Exposes
Recognizing firms that earn traders’ trust.

[The Prop Times @theproptimes]

🚨 Credibility takes years to build and only one post to lose.

I fully support this.

As media pages, our responsibility is to present facts, not push narratives. Every case deserves to be heard from both sides before accusing any firm of being a scam.

If collaborations can influence what gets posted or what doesn’t, that’s a serious conflict of interest and it damages trust across the entire industry.

Genuine media should stand for transparency, evidence, and fairness, whether the trader is right or the firm is right.

We need higher standards, not louder accusations.

[Trusted Prop Hub @trustedprophub]

🚨 This is a serious credibility issue for the entire prop firm media space.

We all support exposing genuine scams and helping traders who are treated unfairly.

But what happens when an “expose” page says this in private?

“If they collaborate with me, I won’t raise cases against them anymore.”

I have attached the screenshots.

Read them yourself.

If your coverage depends on whether a firm collaborates with you, are you exposing misconduct… or trying to negotiate leverage?

Even more concerning, this same page later published a post calling @GoatFunded a scam, despite the firm having already shared its investigation and evidence regarding the case. If you’re going to accuse a firm publicly, at least review both sides before publishing.

This hurts everyone.

It damages the credibility of genuine media pages that spend time verifying cases before speaking.

It makes traders trust the wrong people.

And it gives firms a reason to question legitimate criticism.

To every review and media page: don’t let a few bad actors define this industry.

Verify first. Listen to both sides. Publish facts,not narratives.

Curious to hear what other media pages think.
@PropFirmMedia @propfirmeye @Propfirmedge @propworldnews @PropFirmsGuru @propfundsquad @PropFirmBrigade @propwatchmedia @forexblog9ja
@propfirmtrack @propfirmtalks

Is this acceptable, or is this exactly the behavior that’s damaging trust in our industry?

[The Prop Times @theproptimes]

🚨5 Days Passed... and still complete silence.

No public statement. No clarification. No evidence. No resolution.

The payout dispute involving @S0uravfx and @fundedsquad remains unanswered.

When a firm rejects a trader's payout, the burden is on the firm to explain why with clear, verifiable evidence—not leave the community guessing.

Silence doesn't build trust.

Every hour without a response raises more questions than answers.

@fundedsquad, traders are still waiting.

@ajwadthefalcon @Billfundedsquad @researcher139 @SKYFundedSquad @tricolof1 @cryptoparida

Please address this matter publicly and bring clarity to the community.

[SouravFX @S0uravfx]

Still no update, no explanation, No Payout from @fundedsquad @ajwadthefalcon

[The Prop Times @theproptimes]

🚨 The numbers don’t care about opinions. They only tell the truth.

Over $2.25M paid to traders in just the last 30 days.

@GoatFunded and @GFFutures have officially secured their place in the Top 10 Payout Leaderboard on Prop Firm Match.

Massive respect to @EdwardXLReal and the entire team for consistently rewarding profitable traders instead of making empty promises.

In this industry, trust is earned through payouts, not marketing. 👏💙

[Edward @EdwardXLreal]

🚨Both Goat Funded Trader and Goat Funded Futures

are now ranked among the Top 10 Payout Leaderboard

on Prop Firm Match.

Over the last 30 days:

🏆 GFT: $1.6M+ paid out
🏆 GFF: $650K+ paid out

That's $2.25M+ rewarded to our traders in just one month.

And we're only getting started.

[The Prop Times @theproptimes]

Transparency works both ways 👏🏻

After my previous post, @EquityEdgeUK @berkayglife reached out with a detailed response and supporting information.

According to the firm, all eligible payouts totaling $9,074.46 were approved and paid, an unused account was refunded, and the account restriction was a separate decision made after an internal review, not to avoid paying the trader.

If those records are accurate, then my earlier post lacked important context.

I appreciate Berkay for responding publicly, addressing the concerns directly, and offering documentation to support the firm's position.

I also want to apologize to Equity Edge for any unintended misunderstanding caused by posting before hearing their side.

This is exactly why every story should include both perspectives before conclusions are drawn. Respect to the team for responding with transparency.

[Berkay @berkayglife]

Hi The Prop Times,

We are happy to provide our side regarding the post you have made.

To clarify, the claim that this user was banned to avoid paying him is completely false. All eligible payouts owed to this user were approved and paid. Our records confirm that $9,074.46 was approved and paid to him, which is also visible in our public payout proof channel.

Following an internal senior management review, a decision was made to permanently restrict the user from accessing Equity Edge services going forward. This was communicated to him, and importantly, his eligible payouts were still honoured.

After being informed that he was no longer permitted to use our services, the user proceeded to purchase further accounts. As a gesture of goodwill, the unused active account where no trades had been placed was refunded back to the original payment method.

For clarity:

All eligible payouts were honoured and paid.
The unused active account was refunded.
No funds are owed to the user.
The permanent restriction remains final.

We strongly reject the suggestion that Equity Edge withheld funds, avoided paying a trader, or acted unfairly. The records show the opposite.

We are happy to provide documentation where required, including payout records, communication records, refund confirmation, and the account restriction notice.

Regards,
Berkay
Equity Edge

[The Prop Times @theproptimes]

@propfirmcase @HolaPrimeGlobal Thank you @propfirmcase for accelerating this issue. 🫡

[The Prop Times @theproptimes]

Serious questions for @HolaPrimeGlobal 🚨

An $18,000 payout gets rejected over an alleged margin usage rule, yet traders can’t seem to find this rule in your FAQs.

@Somesh_HP, can you clarify:

• Where is this rule officially documented before someone buys an account?
• Why isn’t there a clearly defined margin limit in your public rules?
• How can traders be expected to follow a rule that isn’t transparently disclosed?

Transparency isn’t optional when payouts are involved. Traders deserve clear rules before they risk their capital.

[Blacklion @kingposhi]

I don die which kind prop firm be this I checked your FAQ and you guys don't have any margin rules @Somesh_HP @HolaPrimeGlobal you guys are cunny

[The Prop Times @theproptimes]

@PropFirmsGuru @EquityEdgeUK Traders deserves transparency @EquityEdgeUK

[The Prop Times @theproptimes]

🚨 Serious question for @HolaPrimeGlobal…

Since when did catching a big winning move become “gambling”?

The trader took 5 trades:
• 3 controlled losses (~$500–700)
• 2 profitable trades
• Stayed net profitable by letting winners run.

Isn’t that exactly what every trader is taught?

If holding winners is now a policy violation, where is the line? Traders deserve a clear explanation.
@HolaPrimeGlobal @HolaPrimeAfrica ⁉️

[The Prop Times @theproptimes]

🚨 How many payout denials does it take before traders start asking serious questions?

Another trader. Another rejected payout.

This time it’s @S0uravfx, someone with a proven payout history across multiple prop firms and no previous IP-related issues.

According to the trader, @fundedsquad denied a $929.78 payout over an alleged IP policy violation.

If a payout is rejected for a technical reason, traders deserve more than a generic explanation. Transparency matters. Clear evidence builds trust. Vague responses only create more doubt.

Risk policies should protect firms from abuse, not leave genuine traders questioning whether they’ll ever get paid.

@fundedsquad, the community is paying attention. A clear public response would go a long way.

@ajwadthefalcon @Billfundedsquad @researcher139 @SKYFundedSquad @tricolof1 @cryptoparida Kindly resolve this issue

[The Prop Times @theproptimes]

@ragavchadda @S0uravfx I'm out 🙂

[The Prop Times @theproptimes]

🚨 How many payout denials does it take before traders start asking serious questions?

Another trader. Another rejected payout.

This time it’s @S0uravfx, someone with a proven payout history across multiple prop firms and no previous IP-related issues.

According to the trader, @fundedsquad denied a $929.78 payout over an alleged IP policy violation.

If a payout is rejected for a technical reason, traders deserve more than a generic explanation. Transparency matters. Clear evidence builds trust. Vague responses only create more doubt.

Risk policies should protect firms from abuse, not leave genuine traders questioning whether they’ll ever get paid.

@fundedsquad, the community is paying attention. A clear public response would go a long way.

@ajwadthefalcon @Billfundedsquad @researcher139 @SKYFundedSquad @tricolof1 @cryptoparida Kindly resolve this issue

[SouravFX @S0uravfx]

🚨Scam With Me @fundedsquad @PropFirmMedia @cryptoparida @MSTARROHIT
I never thought I would have to write a post like this, but the trading community deserves to know what happened.

I passed my FundedSquad challenge, followed all of their rules, and traded my funded account myself. When I became eligible for my payout of $929.78, I submitted my withdrawal request expecting a smooth process.

Instead, my payout was rejected.

The reason they gave was that my account had allegedly been accessed from two different locations: Kolkata and Patna, which they claimed violated their IP Usage Policy.
This allegation is completely false from my perspective.

I have never shared my account with anyone. I am a trading content creator who documents my funded trading journey publicly, and I personally operate my own accounts. The claim that someone else accessed my account from Patna simply does not reflect my actual usage.
I immediately contacted their Risk Team and requested a proper manual review. I explained everything in detail and asked them to investigate further.

Their response was simply that they had already reviewed the case, examined their internal logs, and that their decision was final. No meaningful opportunity was provided to challenge or verify the evidence they relied on.
As a result: • My $929.78 payout was denied. • My funded account was permanently breached. • My case was closed without any further review.

I'm not asking for special treatment. I'm asking for transparency, fairness, and clear evidence before a trader loses both their funded account and earned payout.

If a trader can pass the evaluation, trade successfully, earn a payout, and then lose everything over an IP allegation they genuinely dispute, every trader deserves to know.
I'm sharing my experience so others can make informed decisions.

Has anyone else faced something similar with @FundedSquad?

[The Prop Times @theproptimes]

Name two best CFD prop firm!

We'll drop a giveaway from there...👀

[The Prop Times @theproptimes]

@shivamisop @S0uravfx @fundedsquad @fundedsupport1 @ajwadthefalcon @SKYFundedSquad Clear scam! 🚨

[The Prop Times @theproptimes]

@S0uravfx @fundedsquad @fundedsupport1 @ajwadthefalcon @SKYFundedSquad The trader already took more than $5k+ in payouts from other firms as well, this is the first time you are facing the issue right with any firm? @S0uravfx

[The Prop Times @theproptimes]

@sourovdey01 @S0uravfx @fundedsquad @fundedsupport1 @ajwadthefalcon @SKYFundedSquad Its a clear scam behaviour, do better guys @fundedsquad @ajwadthefalcon