ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳

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

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

❗ 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 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

@reportpropscam @raghavsharmafx @Trillionarie369 @TrustedPropNews

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

📉 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 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

🚨 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 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

@TradingMaestro6 truee🥲

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

@breakoutprop Forget payout @fundingpips banned me before reaching payout.
https://t.co/COeQtcuRuQ

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

🚨 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 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

@Khldfx https://t.co/COeQtcuRuQ

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

🚨 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 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

@H93872Rami @fundingpips @Khldfx @ErkanOriginal @TrustedPropHub @PropFirmMatch @vedictrades @Propfirmedge Already did showed my mt5 login logs on 29 july, he asked the question i answered now @ErkanOriginal is silent.

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

❗ 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 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

🚨 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 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

@Khldfx Like this ?? Where you scam traders just to get 300 usd

https://t.co/COeQtcuRuQ

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

🚨 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 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

@TrustedPropNews @fundingpips See my i even have counter evidence that there system is flawed
https://t.co/COeQtcuRuQ

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

🚨 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 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

@Hermes_TheSaint @Iamdemo114099 @fundingpips @Khldfx @ErkanOriginal @TrustedPropHub @PropFirmMatch @vedictrades @Propfirmedge Bro don't take him seriously either he is from fp or a blind follower.

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

@Iamdemo114099 @fundingpips @Khldfx @ErkanOriginal @TrustedPropHub @PropFirmMatch @vedictrades @Propfirmedge How ?

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

🚨 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 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

@fundingpips @Khldfx @ErkanOriginal @TrustedPropHub @PropFirmMatch @vedictrades @Propfirmedge @TrustedPropNews @PropFirmMedia @PropFirmsGuru @propfundsquad @reportpropscam @Trillionarie369 @kaitofxftc @ishaansaini22

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

@Hermes_TheSaint @aliyuamuhammad @avikkfp @fundingpips @Khldfx @ErkanOriginal bro he removed the post coz his issue was resolved. Earlier, he was posting about his issue and attacking FP, but they solved his issue. There is one more trader who had the same copier issue; they solved his, so now he has deleted the post. They selectively solve issues.

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

@Hermes_TheSaint @aliyuamuhammad @avikkfp @fundingpips @Khldfx @ErkanOriginal Bro 🤣 they made them delete those post. These @fundingpips guys are next level scammers. There are 3 cases which i was following. They unbanned him see ss. I have attached my copiers confirmation also that using copier can cause cid.

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

@Iminvisibl6435 @Sai_Prasan @Meta @fundingpips Bro for master account i used investor and for slave account i used main password. The account fp flagged is slave account.

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

What about replying to their breach email, contacting support multiple times, and posting my issue on X daily just to get the evidence that should have been sent to me by email in the first place?

It took them 20 days just to show me the evidence.

Support refused to share it, citing "privacy reasons." But when my posts on X started getting traction, @ErkanOriginal publicly posted my breach evidence on X. So sharing it privately was supposedly a problem, but posting it publicly wasn't?

And even then, the evidence was incomplete.

Before that, I was defending myself by providing my MT5 login records.

After watching your video and following your suggestion, I contacted my copy-trading provider for confirmation. They confirmed that the alleged account was connected to their server and that I was using their copier service.

I shared this confirmation with @avikkfp through multiple emails and X posts.

The result? The same ignorance.

So is this what you call transparency from a so-called top prop firm?

It's been more than 70 days, and I'm still waiting for a fair and transparent resolution.

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

@Sai_Prasan @Meta @fundingpips Are you talking about those dozens of reports in which traders were falsely banned on questionable evidence?

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

Just like you jumped in to support SVJ, assuming the trader is only doing this for a free account. I've seen him posting about his FundingPips issue for months. that's why he commented that FundingPips only pays influencers. you may disagree with him, but framing it as "he just wants a free account" is a completely different story.
Nobody said you owe him anything.
But if you don't know the full story behind a case, maybe don't make assumptions about someone's motives. and if you do choose to jump into the discussion and make assumptions, don't get upset when people challenge them.

[ABHISHEK SHARMA 🇮🇳 @traderabhishek]

@rotrade93 Even firms like @fundingpips are SCAMMING traders with false ban even when traders have counter evidence to prove them wrong.