ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳

𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐞
fundingpips 50k challenge account
goat funded 2900 usd
funded Squad 1900 usd

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

❗ 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬, 𝐈 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐞𝐲𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬.

🚨 @fundingpips 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐎𝐰𝐧 𝐆𝐨𝐚𝐥.

𝐅𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐏𝐢𝐩𝐬' 𝐎𝐰𝐧 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐑𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐖𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬... 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐝, 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐌𝐲 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞.

After repeatedly asking FundingPips one simple question:

"𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐲 $𝟓𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞 (𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭 #𝟏𝟐𝟐𝟖𝟗𝟑𝟎𝟏) 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝? 𝐒𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞."

𝐎𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐲𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐚𝐲, they finally responded.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧?

They claimed that 𝐦𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫'𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭... 𝟓 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐚𝐠𝐨.

𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞'𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭...

The very account they're referring to (𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟕𝟔𝟔𝟒𝟐) is an account 𝐈 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝟏𝟓 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓 and 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝟏𝟕 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓.

𝐅𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐏𝐢𝐩𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭, 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐌𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭.

❓ 𝐈𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞-𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭?

❓ 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝟓 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫—𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐲 𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 $𝟓𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞?

𝐈 𝐡𝐚𝐝𝐧'𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝟏. 𝐘𝐞𝐭 𝐦𝐲 $𝟓𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝟏 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝟓 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐫.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭?

𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐈𝐑 𝐏𝐔𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐂 𝐄𝐕𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄 𝐃𝐎𝐄𝐒𝐍'𝐓 𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐂𝐇 𝐌𝐘 𝐌𝐓𝟓 𝐋𝐎𝐆𝐒.

So I went back and reviewed my 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐞 𝐌𝐓𝟓 𝐣𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐬 covering 𝟏𝟕 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓 – 𝟗 𝐅𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔—the exact period they're referring to.

✅ 𝐌𝐲 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭 (𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟕𝟔𝟔𝟒𝟐) 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐬.

❌ 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭 (𝟏𝟏𝟐𝟏𝟒𝟐𝟖𝟏) 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐙𝐄𝐑𝐎 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬.

𝐘𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐝.
❓𝐈𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝, 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬𝐧'𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐲 𝐌𝐓𝟓 𝐣𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐬?

😂 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲, 𝐈 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐠 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐒𝐰𝐢𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫'𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭... 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐲 𝐌𝐓𝟓 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭'𝐬 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐚 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐤.

🎥 𝐈 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐌𝐓𝟓 𝐥𝐨𝐠 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐧 𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐲.

𝐈'𝐦 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐞 𝐌𝐓𝟓 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐬.
@fundingpips @avikkfp @Khldfx @ErkanOriginal @propscamReport

𝐋𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞.

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

@LORDFX_786 @tradeifyforex @fundingpips @the5erstrading @FundedNext Fundingpips is doing scam with traders

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

@LORDFX_786 @tradeifyforex @fundingpips @the5erstrading @FundedNext https://t.co/kzDUbUvT7Y

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

🚨 𝗟𝗔𝗗𝗜𝗘𝗦 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗚𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗟𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗡, 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗦 𝗙𝗨𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚𝗣𝗜𝗣𝗦 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗬𝗢𝗨 — 𝗗𝗔𝗬 𝟴𝟬. 🚨

𝗢𝗻 𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝟴𝟬, 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲.

𝗢𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝘀 #𝟭𝟭𝟭𝟳𝟲𝟲𝟰𝟮. 𝗘𝗿𝗸𝗮𝗻 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗫 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗖𝗜𝗗 𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁.

𝗜𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲, 𝗜 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱:

✅ 𝗠𝗧𝟱 𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗻 𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘀
✅ 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗗𝘂𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲
✅ 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗖𝗜𝗗 𝗳𝗹𝗮𝗴𝘀
✅ 𝗘𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝗺𝗲 𝗜 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗗𝘂𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗲𝗿
𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀' 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗮 𝗦𝘄𝗶𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿'𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁.
𝗜 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲.
𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿-𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲, 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝘆 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗽𝗶𝗹𝗼𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻.

❓ 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗹?

❓ 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲, 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 "𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀"?

❓ 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝟮𝟭 𝗱𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗫 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱?

𝗡𝗼𝘄, 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗜 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗱.

𝗦𝘂𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗹𝘆, 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 #𝟭𝟭𝟭𝟳𝟲𝟲𝟰𝟮 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀.

𝗡𝗼𝘄 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁, #𝟭𝟬𝟴𝟬𝟲𝟬𝟰𝟰, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁, 𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝟭𝟱 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝘀, 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲.

𝗦𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀, 𝗮 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗲𝗱.

𝗜𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴?

@fundingpips @ErkanOriginal @avikkfp @Khldfx

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

🚨 𝗟𝗔𝗗𝗜𝗘𝗦 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗚𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗟𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗡, 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗦 𝗙𝗨𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚𝗣𝗜𝗣𝗦 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗬𝗢𝗨 — 𝗗𝗔𝗬 𝟴𝟬. 🚨

𝗢𝗻 𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝟴𝟬, 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲.

𝗢𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝘀 #𝟭𝟭𝟭𝟳𝟲𝟲𝟰𝟮. 𝗘𝗿𝗸𝗮𝗻 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗫 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗖𝗜𝗗 𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁.

𝗜𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲, 𝗜 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱:

✅ 𝗠𝗧𝟱 𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗻 𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘀
✅ 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗗𝘂𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲
✅ 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗖𝗜𝗗 𝗳𝗹𝗮𝗴𝘀
✅ 𝗘𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝗺𝗲 𝗜 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗗𝘂𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗲𝗿
𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀' 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗮 𝗦𝘄𝗶𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿'𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁.
𝗜 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲.
𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿-𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲, 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝘆 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗽𝗶𝗹𝗼𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻.

❓ 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗹?

❓ 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲, 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 "𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀"?

❓ 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝟮𝟭 𝗱𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗫 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱?

𝗡𝗼𝘄, 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗜 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗱.

𝗦𝘂𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗹𝘆, 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 #𝟭𝟭𝟭𝟳𝟲𝟲𝟰𝟮 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀.

𝗡𝗼𝘄 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁, #𝟭𝟬𝟴𝟬𝟲𝟬𝟰𝟰, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁, 𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝟭𝟱 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝘀, 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲.

𝗦𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀, 𝗮 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗲𝗱.

𝗜𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴?

@fundingpips @ErkanOriginal @avikkfp @Khldfx

[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

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

🚨 𝗟𝗔𝗗𝗜𝗘𝗦 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗚𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗟𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗡, 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗦 𝗙𝗨𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚𝗣𝗜𝗣𝗦 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗬𝗢𝗨 — 𝗗𝗔𝗬 𝟴𝟬. 🚨

𝗢𝗻 𝗗𝗮𝘆 𝟴𝟬, 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲.

𝗢𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝘀 #𝟭𝟭𝟭𝟳𝟲𝟲𝟰𝟮. 𝗘𝗿𝗸𝗮𝗻 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗫 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗖𝗜𝗗 𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁.

𝗜𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲, 𝗜 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱:

✅ 𝗠𝗧𝟱 𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗻 𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘀
✅ 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗗𝘂𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲
✅ 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗖𝗜𝗗 𝗳𝗹𝗮𝗴𝘀
✅ 𝗘𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝗺𝗲 𝗜 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗗𝘂𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗲𝗿
𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀' 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗮 𝗦𝘄𝗶𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿'𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁.
𝗜 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲.
𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿-𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲, 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝘆 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗽𝗶𝗹𝗼𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻.

❓ 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗹?

❓ 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲, 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 "𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀"?

❓ 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝟮𝟭 𝗱𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗫 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱?

𝗡𝗼𝘄, 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗜 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗱.

𝗦𝘂𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗹𝘆, 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 #𝟭𝟭𝟭𝟳𝟲𝟲𝟰𝟮 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀.

𝗡𝗼𝘄 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗣𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁, #𝟭𝟬𝟴𝟬𝟲𝟬𝟰𝟰, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁, 𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝟭𝟱 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝘀, 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲.

𝗦𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀, 𝗮 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗲𝗱.

𝗜𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴?

@fundingpips @ErkanOriginal @avikkfp @Khldfx

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

@LORDFX_786 @BlueGuardiancom @seanbaint @AlphaCapitalUK @the5erstrading Although i didn't reach payout but i saw many negative review posts in resent days.

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

@Brainopnr @eyramdela @fundingpips What about this ? Why did there mod said use any copier.

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

@TrustedPropHub @PropFirmMatch @fundingpips @reportpropscam @Propfirmedge I am not a troller @fundingpips @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

@hammadtrades @fundingpips SAME HERE WELCOME TO THE CLUB
https://t.co/b2EX6gxGfZ

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

📉 𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 $𝟑𝟎𝟎𝐊 𝐅𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 — 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐀𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐌𝐲 𝐅𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐏𝐢𝐩𝐬 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐔𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝.

🚨 𝐈𝐟 𝐈 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 $𝟑𝟎𝟎𝐊 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐈 𝐬𝐮𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐂𝐈𝐃 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐈 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝?

⚖️ 𝐈𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫, 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐈 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞?
@fundingpips @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

Even when you have counter evidence and copy trading platforms confirmation that using copy trader causes cid but still firms like @fundingpips used that to ban me coz previously i was 300k funded with them they just need reason to ban traders even if reason is false.
https://t.co/5rjRJIFOeT

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

🚨 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐑𝐒, 𝐎𝐏𝐄𝐍 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐄𝐘𝐄𝐒 — 𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐏 𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐃𝐋𝐘 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆. @fundingpips & @Khldfx .

READ THIS BEFORE YOU BUY AN ACCOUNT.

📅 7 July – I received an email stating that my ongoing $50K Phase 1 challenge was being breached for a CID violation.

No evidence was attached.

📅 9 July – I emailed FundingPips asking for proof.

No response.

📅 11 July – I contacted support.

Their response?

"We cannot share the proof due to privacy reasons."

Privacy reasons? How does showing the suspected account number, login date, and time violate anyone's privacy?

I explained that there must be a mistake.

Their answer:

"We rechecked the issue. The ban is fair."

Case closed. No evidence provided.

📅 15 July – I started posting publicly asking for the evidence.

After posting daily and commenting on FundingPips-related posts, I finally received the "proof" on 28 July.

That's 21 days later.

The proof that should have been included in the original breach email only appeared after public pressure on X.

So the proof can be posted on social media, but it can't be shared privately with the trader being accused?

And here's where it gets interesting.

The alleged CID violation wasn't from my active $50K challenge.

It was supposedly from December, 7 months earlier, on a $100K Phase 1 account.

The same account that:

✅ Passed Phase 1

✅ Passed Phase 2

✅ Passed review

✅ Received a Master Account

✅ Was traded for weeks

✅ Was eventually breached during a losing streak

Only when I later purchased a new $50K challenge did FundingPips suddenly decide that this old account had a CID violation.

So what caused it?

A copier.

I was managing more than 5 accounts, so before using @Duplikium I specifically asked FundingPips moderators in Discord whether I could use a copier.

Their answer:

"Use any copier."

I used Duplikium.

Later, Duplikium confirmed that:

✅ I was using their service

✅ The account in question was connected to their infrastructure

I submitted the confirmations, the timeline, and my explanation to @avikkfp email .

I also posted everything publicly.

The result?

Silence.

No meaningful review.

No acknowledgement of the counter-evidence.

Just the same decision.

At this point, I don't even want to trade with your firm anymore.

But when your own evidence is challenged with documented counter-evidence, the least you can do is refund the money traders paid instead of ignoring them.

Transparency shouldn't require public pressure.

Evidence shouldn't appear 21 days after a ban.

And traders shouldn't be expected to accept accusations without a fair review.

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

@SealFunded @PropFirmMatch @FundedNext @fundingpips @BrightFunded Fundingpips has started to scam traders .
https://t.co/b2EX6gxGfZ

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

📉 𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 $𝟑𝟎𝟎𝐊 𝐅𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 — 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐀𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐌𝐲 𝐅𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐏𝐢𝐩𝐬 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐔𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝.

🚨 𝐈𝐟 𝐈 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 $𝟑𝟎𝟎𝐊 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐈 𝐬𝐮𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐂𝐈𝐃 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐈 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝?

⚖️ 𝐈𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫, 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐈 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞?
@fundingpips @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

@TrustedPropNews @AlphaCapitalUK why you dont cover @fundingpips issues ?

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

@dc_capitalfx @fundingpips is so overrated that people don't believe they can use unfair tactics to ban traders
https://t.co/COeQtcuRuQ

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

🚨 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐑𝐒, 𝐎𝐏𝐄𝐍 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐄𝐘𝐄𝐒 — 𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐏 𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐃𝐋𝐘 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆. @fundingpips & @Khldfx .

READ THIS BEFORE YOU BUY AN ACCOUNT.

📅 7 July – I received an email stating that my ongoing $50K Phase 1 challenge was being breached for a CID violation.

No evidence was attached.

📅 9 July – I emailed FundingPips asking for proof.

No response.

📅 11 July – I contacted support.

Their response?

"We cannot share the proof due to privacy reasons."

Privacy reasons? How does showing the suspected account number, login date, and time violate anyone's privacy?

I explained that there must be a mistake.

Their answer:

"We rechecked the issue. The ban is fair."

Case closed. No evidence provided.

📅 15 July – I started posting publicly asking for the evidence.

After posting daily and commenting on FundingPips-related posts, I finally received the "proof" on 28 July.

That's 21 days later.

The proof that should have been included in the original breach email only appeared after public pressure on X.

So the proof can be posted on social media, but it can't be shared privately with the trader being accused?

And here's where it gets interesting.

The alleged CID violation wasn't from my active $50K challenge.

It was supposedly from December, 7 months earlier, on a $100K Phase 1 account.

The same account that:

✅ Passed Phase 1

✅ Passed Phase 2

✅ Passed review

✅ Received a Master Account

✅ Was traded for weeks

✅ Was eventually breached during a losing streak

Only when I later purchased a new $50K challenge did FundingPips suddenly decide that this old account had a CID violation.

So what caused it?

A copier.

I was managing more than 5 accounts, so before using @Duplikium I specifically asked FundingPips moderators in Discord whether I could use a copier.

Their answer:

"Use any copier."

I used Duplikium.

Later, Duplikium confirmed that:

✅ I was using their service

✅ The account in question was connected to their infrastructure

I submitted the confirmations, the timeline, and my explanation to @avikkfp email .

I also posted everything publicly.

The result?

Silence.

No meaningful review.

No acknowledgement of the counter-evidence.

Just the same decision.

At this point, I don't even want to trade with your firm anymore.

But when your own evidence is challenged with documented counter-evidence, the least you can do is refund the money traders paid instead of ignoring them.

Transparency shouldn't require public pressure.

Evidence shouldn't appear 21 days after a ban.

And traders shouldn't be expected to accept accusations without a fair review.

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

@thxofx @AlphaCapitalUK @FTMO_com @fundingpips bro did you use the copier? coz similar things are going in @fundingpips same cid ban

https://t.co/COeQtcuRuQ

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

🚨 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐑𝐒, 𝐎𝐏𝐄𝐍 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐄𝐘𝐄𝐒 — 𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐏 𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐃𝐋𝐘 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆. @fundingpips & @Khldfx .

READ THIS BEFORE YOU BUY AN ACCOUNT.

📅 7 July – I received an email stating that my ongoing $50K Phase 1 challenge was being breached for a CID violation.

No evidence was attached.

📅 9 July – I emailed FundingPips asking for proof.

No response.

📅 11 July – I contacted support.

Their response?

"We cannot share the proof due to privacy reasons."

Privacy reasons? How does showing the suspected account number, login date, and time violate anyone's privacy?

I explained that there must be a mistake.

Their answer:

"We rechecked the issue. The ban is fair."

Case closed. No evidence provided.

📅 15 July – I started posting publicly asking for the evidence.

After posting daily and commenting on FundingPips-related posts, I finally received the "proof" on 28 July.

That's 21 days later.

The proof that should have been included in the original breach email only appeared after public pressure on X.

So the proof can be posted on social media, but it can't be shared privately with the trader being accused?

And here's where it gets interesting.

The alleged CID violation wasn't from my active $50K challenge.

It was supposedly from December, 7 months earlier, on a $100K Phase 1 account.

The same account that:

✅ Passed Phase 1

✅ Passed Phase 2

✅ Passed review

✅ Received a Master Account

✅ Was traded for weeks

✅ Was eventually breached during a losing streak

Only when I later purchased a new $50K challenge did FundingPips suddenly decide that this old account had a CID violation.

So what caused it?

A copier.

I was managing more than 5 accounts, so before using @Duplikium I specifically asked FundingPips moderators in Discord whether I could use a copier.

Their answer:

"Use any copier."

I used Duplikium.

Later, Duplikium confirmed that:

✅ I was using their service

✅ The account in question was connected to their infrastructure

I submitted the confirmations, the timeline, and my explanation to @avikkfp email .

I also posted everything publicly.

The result?

Silence.

No meaningful review.

No acknowledgement of the counter-evidence.

Just the same decision.

At this point, I don't even want to trade with your firm anymore.

But when your own evidence is challenged with documented counter-evidence, the least you can do is refund the money traders paid instead of ignoring them.

Transparency shouldn't require public pressure.

Evidence shouldn't appear 21 days after a ban.

And traders shouldn't be expected to accept accusations without a fair review.

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

@avikkfp Paying influencers and banning traders that's @fundingpips .
https://t.co/COeQtcuRuQ

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

🚨 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐑𝐒, 𝐎𝐏𝐄𝐍 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐄𝐘𝐄𝐒 — 𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐏 𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐃𝐋𝐘 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆. @fundingpips & @Khldfx .

READ THIS BEFORE YOU BUY AN ACCOUNT.

📅 7 July – I received an email stating that my ongoing $50K Phase 1 challenge was being breached for a CID violation.

No evidence was attached.

📅 9 July – I emailed FundingPips asking for proof.

No response.

📅 11 July – I contacted support.

Their response?

"We cannot share the proof due to privacy reasons."

Privacy reasons? How does showing the suspected account number, login date, and time violate anyone's privacy?

I explained that there must be a mistake.

Their answer:

"We rechecked the issue. The ban is fair."

Case closed. No evidence provided.

📅 15 July – I started posting publicly asking for the evidence.

After posting daily and commenting on FundingPips-related posts, I finally received the "proof" on 28 July.

That's 21 days later.

The proof that should have been included in the original breach email only appeared after public pressure on X.

So the proof can be posted on social media, but it can't be shared privately with the trader being accused?

And here's where it gets interesting.

The alleged CID violation wasn't from my active $50K challenge.

It was supposedly from December, 7 months earlier, on a $100K Phase 1 account.

The same account that:

✅ Passed Phase 1

✅ Passed Phase 2

✅ Passed review

✅ Received a Master Account

✅ Was traded for weeks

✅ Was eventually breached during a losing streak

Only when I later purchased a new $50K challenge did FundingPips suddenly decide that this old account had a CID violation.

So what caused it?

A copier.

I was managing more than 5 accounts, so before using @Duplikium I specifically asked FundingPips moderators in Discord whether I could use a copier.

Their answer:

"Use any copier."

I used Duplikium.

Later, Duplikium confirmed that:

✅ I was using their service

✅ The account in question was connected to their infrastructure

I submitted the confirmations, the timeline, and my explanation to @avikkfp email .

I also posted everything publicly.

The result?

Silence.

No meaningful review.

No acknowledgement of the counter-evidence.

Just the same decision.

At this point, I don't even want to trade with your firm anymore.

But when your own evidence is challenged with documented counter-evidence, the least you can do is refund the money traders paid instead of ignoring them.

Transparency shouldn't require public pressure.

Evidence shouldn't appear 21 days after a ban.

And traders shouldn't be expected to accept accusations without a fair review.

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

Hmm, acha hai preps, but lower tf mai volume nahi hai even 15 min pe bhi futures chart mai wick hoti hai, prep mai wick nahi hoti. baki 24x7 ka koi fyada nahi sat and sunday volume hi ni hoti but yes hold toh kar hi sakte hai position woh advantage hai. static toh futures mai bhi aagaya hai but abhi sirf through lab account ke through test ho raha hai like topsteps 250k account. best advantage is these prepfirms are trustworthy unlike shady cfd firms.

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

i'm not blaming the firm without reason i'm presenting the timeline, their evidence, my counter-evidence, and the responses i received. that's called transparency, not crying. i'm already trading futures, cfds, and other prop firms, so this isn't about finding a way to trade. it's about making traders aware of how disputes are handled when questions are raised. instead of asking why traders are speaking up, maybe ask why the firm isn't properly addressing the counter-evidence. and since you recommend fundingpips to others, consider this an eye-opener too: blindly trusting any prop firm is a mistake. if a firm can accuse a trader, it should also be willing to fairly review the evidence when that accusation is challenged.

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

📉 𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 $𝟑𝟎𝟎𝐊 𝐅𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 — 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐀𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐌𝐲 𝐅𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐏𝐢𝐩𝐬 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐔𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝.

🚨 𝐈𝐟 𝐈 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 $𝟑𝟎𝟎𝐊 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐈 𝐬𝐮𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐂𝐈𝐃 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐈 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝?

⚖️ 𝐈𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫, 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐈 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞?
@fundingpips @Khldfx @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

🚨 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐑𝐒, 𝐎𝐏𝐄𝐍 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐄𝐘𝐄𝐒 — 𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐏 𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐃𝐋𝐘 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆. @fundingpips & @Khldfx .

READ THIS BEFORE YOU BUY AN ACCOUNT.

📅 7 July – I received an email stating that my ongoing $50K Phase 1 challenge was being breached for a CID violation.

No evidence was attached.

📅 9 July – I emailed FundingPips asking for proof.

No response.

📅 11 July – I contacted support.

Their response?

"We cannot share the proof due to privacy reasons."

Privacy reasons? How does showing the suspected account number, login date, and time violate anyone's privacy?

I explained that there must be a mistake.

Their answer:

"We rechecked the issue. The ban is fair."

Case closed. No evidence provided.

📅 15 July – I started posting publicly asking for the evidence.

After posting daily and commenting on FundingPips-related posts, I finally received the "proof" on 28 July.

That's 21 days later.

The proof that should have been included in the original breach email only appeared after public pressure on X.

So the proof can be posted on social media, but it can't be shared privately with the trader being accused?

And here's where it gets interesting.

The alleged CID violation wasn't from my active $50K challenge.

It was supposedly from December, 7 months earlier, on a $100K Phase 1 account.

The same account that:

✅ Passed Phase 1

✅ Passed Phase 2

✅ Passed review

✅ Received a Master Account

✅ Was traded for weeks

✅ Was eventually breached during a losing streak

Only when I later purchased a new $50K challenge did FundingPips suddenly decide that this old account had a CID violation.

So what caused it?

A copier.

I was managing more than 5 accounts, so before using @Duplikium I specifically asked FundingPips moderators in Discord whether I could use a copier.

Their answer:

"Use any copier."

I used Duplikium.

Later, Duplikium confirmed that:

✅ I was using their service

✅ The account in question was connected to their infrastructure

I submitted the confirmations, the timeline, and my explanation to @avikkfp email .

I also posted everything publicly.

The result?

Silence.

No meaningful review.

No acknowledgement of the counter-evidence.

Just the same decision.

At this point, I don't even want to trade with your firm anymore.

But when your own evidence is challenged with documented counter-evidence, the least you can do is refund the money traders paid instead of ignoring them.

Transparency shouldn't require public pressure.

Evidence shouldn't appear 21 days after a ban.

And traders shouldn't be expected to accept accusations without a fair review.

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

@FintekMustafa @the5erstrading @the5erstrading wtf is going on!!

[Fintek Mustafa @FintekMustafa]

I had $400,000 in funded accounts with @the5erstrading

Then they closed them over an alleged One-Sided Betting (OSB) violation — a decision I strongly disagree with.

I’ve shared my account data openly and explained the entire situation in detail in my YouTube video.

🎥 Full story & details:https://t.co/7G8ceTP8aM

@The5ers @SaiJagan08

Traders deserve a fair environment. Let’s see if The5ers will provide that.

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

@SwingWiseFX @Sup___sam @BlueGuardiancom @TradingLucid Firms like @fundingpips takes 21 days to provide evidence. And that so called evidence was an error still they are not resolving my issue its been more than 75 days
https://t.co/COeQtcuRuQ

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhiii]

🚨 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐑𝐒, 𝐎𝐏𝐄𝐍 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐄𝐘𝐄𝐒 — 𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐏 𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐃𝐋𝐘 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆. @fundingpips & @Khldfx .

READ THIS BEFORE YOU BUY AN ACCOUNT.

📅 7 July – I received an email stating that my ongoing $50K Phase 1 challenge was being breached for a CID violation.

No evidence was attached.

📅 9 July – I emailed FundingPips asking for proof.

No response.

📅 11 July – I contacted support.

Their response?

"We cannot share the proof due to privacy reasons."

Privacy reasons? How does showing the suspected account number, login date, and time violate anyone's privacy?

I explained that there must be a mistake.

Their answer:

"We rechecked the issue. The ban is fair."

Case closed. No evidence provided.

📅 15 July – I started posting publicly asking for the evidence.

After posting daily and commenting on FundingPips-related posts, I finally received the "proof" on 28 July.

That's 21 days later.

The proof that should have been included in the original breach email only appeared after public pressure on X.

So the proof can be posted on social media, but it can't be shared privately with the trader being accused?

And here's where it gets interesting.

The alleged CID violation wasn't from my active $50K challenge.

It was supposedly from December, 7 months earlier, on a $100K Phase 1 account.

The same account that:

✅ Passed Phase 1

✅ Passed Phase 2

✅ Passed review

✅ Received a Master Account

✅ Was traded for weeks

✅ Was eventually breached during a losing streak

Only when I later purchased a new $50K challenge did FundingPips suddenly decide that this old account had a CID violation.

So what caused it?

A copier.

I was managing more than 5 accounts, so before using @Duplikium I specifically asked FundingPips moderators in Discord whether I could use a copier.

Their answer:

"Use any copier."

I used Duplikium.

Later, Duplikium confirmed that:

✅ I was using their service

✅ The account in question was connected to their infrastructure

I submitted the confirmations, the timeline, and my explanation to @avikkfp email .

I also posted everything publicly.

The result?

Silence.

No meaningful review.

No acknowledgement of the counter-evidence.

Just the same decision.

At this point, I don't even want to trade with your firm anymore.

But when your own evidence is challenged with documented counter-evidence, the least you can do is refund the money traders paid instead of ignoring them.

Transparency shouldn't require public pressure.

Evidence shouldn't appear 21 days after a ban.

And traders shouldn't be expected to accept accusations without a fair review.