Unbiased Prop Firm Reviews & Comparisons. Helping traders find the right firm — just facts. Payouts | Rules | Rankings | Updates 🌐https://xitter.gq/t.co/pWpstfYVST
Joined August 2025
- Tweets269
- Following0
- Followers366
- Likes220
🚨 @fundingpips, PAKISTAN & THE PROP FIRM INDUSTRY: WHO IS REALLY ACCOUNTABLE?
The recent controversy involving FundingPips CEO @Khldfx has opened a much bigger discussion about organized cheating, country-wide restrictions, payout transparency and the treatment of legitimate traders.
And now @PropJoshD from @MyForexFunds has also shared his perspective on the situation.
At @PropFirmSea, we believe this conversation deserves more than social media arguments. It deserves facts, accountability and transparency.
Let's break it down.
1. THE PAKISTAN CONTROVERSY 🇵🇰
A statement attributed to FundingPips' CEO suggested banning an entire country, with the possibility that other firms would follow.
That statement raises serious concerns.
If individuals are involved in organized fraud, investigate those individuals. If groups are manipulating trading systems, take action against those groups.
But legitimate traders should not automatically face restrictions because of their nationality.
A country's trading community cannot be judged entirely by the actions of certain individuals.
2. JOSH FROM MYFOREXFUNDS HAS ENTERED THE DISCUSSION
Josh argues that organized cheating originating from Pakistan has created significant friction between prop firms and legitimate traders.
He also claims that some individuals allegedly involved in organizing these groups now operate prop firms themselves, while others present themselves as influencers on X.
His argument is that legitimate traders must also help expose individuals soliciting or organizing fraudulent activity.
There is an important point here.
Organized fraud damages the entire prop trading ecosystem. Traders who know about fraudulent activities should not protect those responsible.
However, allegations against specific individuals and businesses must be supported by verifiable evidence.
3. THE RESPONSIBILITY GOES BOTH WAYS
Let's be honest.
Prop firms have every right to protect their businesses against:
• Group trading and coordinated account activity.
• Identity and account-sharing abuse.
• Exploitation of platform vulnerabilities.
• Other prohibited activities clearly covered by their rules.
But firms also have responsibilities.
• Investigate accounts individually.
• Explain violations with meaningful evidence.
• Apply published rules consistently.
• Give traders an appropriate opportunity to respond.
• Protect customer information.
• Avoid unfair restrictions based solely on nationality.
Fraud prevention cannot become an excuse for poor customer treatment.
4. FUNDINGPIPS AND THE PAYOUT TRANSPARENCY QUESTION
The screenshots circulating online show different payout figures across tracking platforms.
One tracker reports the following payouts over the last 30 days:
• @FundedNext: 9,593
• @BlueGuardiancom: 2,116
• @fundingpips: 1,564
Meanwhile, @PropFirmMatch displays 13,629 FundingPips payouts worth approximately $13.65M.
FundingPips argues that some payment channels, including cryptocurrency, bank transfers and cards, are not fully represented in external tracking.
This is precisely why payout methodologies matter.
Different datasets cannot be compared fairly without understanding what they measure.
The industry needs better payout reporting, not competing screenshots without context.
5. THE CID DISPUTE: EVIDENCE OR INCOMPLETE INVESTIGATION?
FundingPips published a report showing matching device identifiers associated with multiple accounts.
The affected trader disputes the decision and claims these identifiers were present from the beginning of the account relationship.
Several questions remain:
• What does the CID actually identify?
• Does it conclusively establish common ownership or coordination?
• Were previously owned or shared devices considered?
• Why were the accounts allowed to continue trading?
• Was the trader given an opportunity to explain?
A device match can be a relevant risk indicator, but the underlying evidence.
6. CUSTOMER PRIVACY MUST BE RESPECTED
The circulating screenshots also appear to contain identifiable customer information.
The trader alleges that personal information was publicly exposed during the dispute.
If this information was disclosed without authorization, it raises serious privacy concerns.
Companies handling KYC information have a responsibility to protect it.
A public disagreement should never compromise customer confidentiality.
7. WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NEXT?
We believe both prop firms and traders need to take responsibility.
For prop firms:
- Publish clear rules.
- Improve fraud detection.
- Investigate individuals rather than entire nationalities.
- Provide meaningful explanations for account suspensions.
- Protect customer information.
For traders:
- Stop protecting individuals involved in organized fraud.
- Report genuine solicitation and manipulation with evidence.
- Avoid participating in account-sharing or prohibited group activity.
- Help protect the reputation of legitimate trading communities.
A healthy ecosystem requires cooperation, not silence or collective blame.
8. PROPFIRMSEA'S POSITION
Let's make one thing absolutely clear.
PropFirmSea is being built as an independent research and transparency platform covering CFD, Futures and Crypto prop firms.
We will work with prop firms, but partnerships will never determine our conclusions.
If a trader is wrong, we will say so.
If a firm is wrong, we will say so.
If organized fraud is taking place, we believe it should be exposed with evidence.
If legitimate traders are being treated unfairly, that deserves attention too.
We will review both sides, examine available evidence, investigate published rules and distinguish verified facts from allegations.
Our goal is not to create another platform for attacking prop firms.
Our goal is to create a platform where traders can make informed decisions and firms are encouraged to operate transparently.
🚨 @GuardianFutures: $3,614.40 IN PAYOUTS DENIED AFTER TWO KYT INTERVIEWS
Another trader has raised concerns about Blue Guardian's payout verification and risk review process.
Trader @bmtltt says they were trading four Reserve funded accounts and became eligible for payouts on three.
Payout requests:
• $1,031.40
• $1,272.60
• $1,310.40
Total: $3,614.40
According to the trader, approximately two days after submitting the requests, Blue Guardian initiated an AI-driven KYT interview.
The trader completed TWO interviews, explaining their NQ Futures strategy, which involved macroeconomic analysis, market structure (HH/HL, LH/LL), and discretionary trade execution.
However, Blue Guardian subsequently terminated the funded accounts and denied all three payouts, citing concerns about potential third-party account management.
The trader strongly disputes this allegation, maintaining that all trades were executed personally.
They also claim that despite completing both interviews and offering further clarification, @BlueGuardianSup did not provide specific trading examples or underlying evidence demonstrating third-party account management.
The trader further states that Blue Guardian offered an account fee refund conditional on accepting its findings and signing a full and final settlement agreement. They declined.
This raises several important questions:
1. What specific evidence supports the allegation of third-party account management?
2. What standards are used to evaluate traders during AI-driven KYT interviews?
3. How many interviews can a firm require before reaching a final decision?
4. What happens to eligible profits when funded accounts are terminated following a risk investigation?
We recognise that prop firms must protect their platforms through risk management and verification procedures.
However, traders also deserve transparent explanations, meaningful opportunities to challenge findings, and clarity around payout decisions.
We invite Blue Guardian to provide its official response and clarify the reasons behind these denied payouts.
This report is based on the trader's statements and the correspondence shared with PropFirmSea. We have not independently verified the underlying trading data.
Two KYT interviews but @BlueGuardiancom terminated my funded account and denied ~$4K in payouts.
After explaining that I rely on macro rather than TA, they accused me of not trading my own accounts.
I did. I follow every rule, always.
@seanbaint @propfirmsupdate @PropFirmSea
I will definitely be partnering with prop firms as well, but there's one thing I want to make absolutely clear to every firm listed on PropFirmSea.
If your firm is listed on our platform, we will transparently publish all your rules, policies, trading conditions, and important guidelines so traders know exactly what they are signing up for. We don't want traders to face confusion or receive misleading information.
If a trader reports an issue, we will first investigate everything from our side, review the evidence, and understand what actually happened. We will determine whether the issue was caused by the trader's mistake or the firm's actions.
But if we find that the firm is genuinely at fault, we will not hesitate to publish the findings and bring the issue to the community's attention.
A partnership will never mean special treatment or protection from accountability.
Our priority is transparency, fairness, and protecting traders' interests. We want to build a platform where firms can work with us, but where traders can also trust that their voices will be heard.
That's the standard I want PropFirmSea to stand for.
The sea of prop firms, finally charted. 🌊
Choosing a prop firm shouldn't feel like gambling on who will actually pay you.
That's why we're building @PropFirmSea — an independent platform focused on transparency, research, and real trader experiences.
Here's what we're bringing to the table:
🔹 Compare prop firms side by side
🔹 Track payouts and payout conditions
🔹 Verified trader reviews and real experiences
🔹 Understand hidden rules and restrictions
🔹 PTI (Prop Trust Index) to evaluate firm transparency
🔹 Coverage across Forex, Futures & Crypto
🔹 We have something important 👀
No blind recommendations. No unnecessary hype. Just more information to help traders make informed decisions.
The goal is simple: Make the prop firm industry more transparent, one firm at a time.
Compare. Choose. Trade Bigger.
🌐 PropFirmSea.com
I'm seeing a lot more discussion around Perps lately, and honestly, it has made me curious about something.
What exactly makes Perps different from CFDs? What is the real advantage of Perpetual Futures, and what genuinely separates them from traditional CFD trading?
We're seeing some interesting moves in the industry. Some firms are introducing innovative models, while others are raising concerns about transparency, execution, risk management, and payout reliability.
But one question deserves more attention:
Are CFDs and Perps really that different, or are we simply looking at two different structures offering a very similar trading experience?
There are important differences in how they operate:
• CFDs: Typically OTC derivative contracts offered by a broker, where pricing and execution are managed through the provider's infrastructure.
• Perps: Perpetual futures contracts, commonly found in crypto markets, without an expiry date. They use mechanisms such as funding rates to keep contract prices aligned with the underlying market.
Perps can offer greater transparency through exchange-based order books and on-chain settlement, depending on the platform. But that doesn't automatically make every Perps platform trustworthy.
Just like CFDs, the quality of the platform, execution, liquidity, risk management, and payout structure matters.
I think this is an interesting direction for the prop trading industry, but we should look beyond the marketing and understand what these models actually offer traders.
The real question isn't which model sounds better. It's which model delivers better transparency, fair execution, and consistent payouts.
What's your take? Are Perps the next evolution of prop trading, or are CFDs still relevant for the long term?
So basically, traders should open a support ticket and wait for an update?
But here's the problem: that's exactly what many traders have already been doing.
Some have contacted support multiple times, only to receive the same response: "We're investigating the issue" or "Please wait for an update."
Meanwhile, the payout button remains disabled, and some traders don't even have an estimated timeline for resolution.
The question isn't whether traders should contact support. They already have.
The question is: When will they actually receive a solution?
Transparency means more than redirecting frustrated traders to another support ticket. It means providing clear answers, realistic timelines, and actual resolutions.
We hope @BlueGuardiancom addresses these pending cases soon.
Thank you for raising these points.
We understand the concerns around additional verification steps (risk reviews, KYC, and KYT) and cases where the payout button is temporarily disabled. These checks are part of our standard compliance process and are applied when specific risk or verification flags are triggered, not arbitrarily.
Blue Guardian continues to process a high volume of successful payouts daily. Pending cases are being reviewed, and we are working through the current queue.
If you or any trader you are representing has a specific account affected, the fastest resolution is to open a support ticket directly from the dashboard with the account ID. Our team will review the case and provide a clear update.
We appreciate the call for transparency and are committed to addressing individual issues properly.
What's really happening with @BlueGuardiancom?
We've seen a growing number of concerns being raised by traders recently, and it's time to address what's happening beyond the marketing.
KYC concerns, additional risk interviews, KYT interviews, payout buttons being disabled, and several other issues are being reported by users.
Meanwhile, the marketing continues to highlight payout figures, impressive numbers, and successful withdrawals.
But what about the other side of the story?
Where is the transparency around transaction histories? What is happening with currently pending payouts? Why are traders experiencing these additional verification procedures? And why aren't these concerns receiving clear public responses?
Showing successful payouts is important, but transparency also means addressing problems when they arise.
A firm's credibility isn't measured only by how much it pays out. It's also measured by how it handles difficult situations.
@seanbaint @Aliatcx
At PropFirmSea, we believe traders deserve answers, not just marketing numbers.
We welcome Blue Guardian's response and clarification on these concerns.
Transparency must work both ways.
🧵 THE MFF EVOLUTION MODEL: WHAT ARE TRADERS ACTUALLY MISSING?
There's been a lot of discussion around @MyForexFunds and its return. Some traders love the Evolution model, others are questioning the complexity, especially the 3-strike system.
But I think there's a bigger picture that deserves attention.
Let's break it down.
1/ THE INDUSTRY NEEDED SOMETHING DIFFERENT
For years, the CFD prop industry has been recycling almost identical funding models.
Consistency rules, restricted news trading, minimum trading days, fixed payout cycles, restrictions on holding positions and endless additional conditions.
Firms introduce restrictions to manage risk and protect the sustainability of their business.
But what if there was another way?
Evolution is MFF's attempt to move away from that traditional structure.
2/ THE MODEL IS DATA-DRIVEN
One of the most interesting things shared by MFF management is the historical data behind this model.
According to their explanation, the analysis uses a pool of approximately 500,000 users, including traders who risked up to 5% per trade.
Interestingly, even after including those traders, the median risk per trade was approximately 0.35%.
This is important because risk management shouldn't be designed around the most extreme trading behaviour alone.
It should consider how the majority of traders actually behave.
3/ WHY DOES THE 3-STRIKE SYSTEM EXIST?
This is probably the most misunderstood part of Evolution.
The strike mechanism operates in the funded stage, not during evaluation.
According to MFF management:
- Their internal testing estimates fewer than 3% of users will reach three strikes.
- Another analysis estimated approximately 6%.
- Their suggested working estimate, accounting for differences in trader behaviour, is around 4%.
These are company-provided estimates, not independently verified results.
The important point is that the worst-case scenario many traders are imagining may not represent the typical trader journey.
4/ WHAT HAPPENS BEFORE A TRADER REACHES THREE STRIKES?
This is where the model becomes interesting.
Evolution allows eligible Partner traders to request rewards on demand rather than waiting for a traditional bi-weekly payout cycle.
According to management, traders may collect multiple rewards before ever reaching their third strike.
MFF also plans to bring back its 2023 bonus structure:
- Pass Phase 1 and receive the relevant bonus after passing Phase 2.
- Receive the Phase 1 bonus after passing Phase 2.
- Receive the Phase 2 bonus after the first reward payout.
Management estimates that the bonus could return approximately 30% of the initial fee, although the final details should be confirmed.
The idea is to let traders recover part of their initial investment earlier while continuing to trade.
5/ WHY THE FUNDED JOURNEY MATTERS
Another interesting point is that MFF says 12% or fewer evaluation participants pass the challenge stage.
That means the strike mechanism only applies to a smaller group who actually reach funded status.
And according to the company's historical modelling, Evolution could result in 10–15% more funded traders receiving at least one reward compared with the traditional model.
That's a significant claim, and actual trading results will be important in validating it.
6/ THE REAL DIFFERENCE: RISK MANAGEMENT
I think this is where people need to look beyond the surface-level rules.
MFF management explained that its analysis also considers how traders change their stop-loss behaviour as they approach a strike.
For example, a trader repeatedly opening large Gold positions, alternating between wins and losses within a short period, presents a different risk pattern from someone consistently managing exposure.
The model is designed around broader retail trading behaviour rather than simply assuming every trader will behave the same way.
This is an important distinction when evaluating the sustainability of a funding model.
I think we're looking at this from two different perspectives, and that's completely fine.
First, I genuinely appreciate the fact that @MyForexFunds is trying something different. The traditional CFD prop model has been recycled for years, with firms launching almost identical challenges and continuously introducing additional restrictions to make their models sustainable.
So yes, innovation is needed. Giving traders more freedom, reducing unnecessary restrictions and moving away from the usual consistency rules, news restrictions, minimum trading days and complicated payout cycles is something the industry should welcome.
But I think there's an important distinction that we're overlooking:
Trading freedom and rule simplicity are two completely different things.
The Evolution model might offer more freedom once traders understand it, but that doesn't necessarily mean the programme itself is easy to understand.
Partner and Intern statuses, strike configurations, switching conditions, recovery requirements, drawdown allowances and Reward Pool mechanics are quite a lot to process, especially for someone new to prop trading.
And that's where my concern comes from.
A trader shouldn't need to study an extensive rulebook, calculate multiple scenarios or constantly worry about which status they're operating under just to understand how their account works.
You mentioned that you've traded with over 30 prop firms and believe MFF offers the potential for six-figure payouts. That's great, and I genuinely hope traders can achieve those kinds of payouts without unnecessary conflicts.
But we also need to consider the experience of the wider trading community, not just experienced traders who already understand complex funding models.
I also disagree with the idea that questioning these rules makes someone a bad trader or someone who doesn't understand the potential. Constructive criticism is not hate. If anything, companies should welcome feedback before launching a product to a much wider audience.
My concern isn't that MFF is doing something different. It's that a potentially brilliant concept could lose a significant number of traders simply because its mechanics aren't communicated clearly enough.
My suggestion to MFF management would be simple:
- Keep the innovative funding model.
- Reduce unnecessary complexity in the strike and switching mechanisms.
- Provide clear, practical examples of every possible account scenario.
- Make drawdown calculations and account breach conditions completely transparent.
- Explain payout eligibility and withdrawal conditions without ambiguity.
- Make the entire system understandable even to someone purchasing their first prop firm account.
Remember, MFF had something that most firms spend years trying to build: brand recognition, community trust and enormous anticipation surrounding its comeback.
The industry was genuinely excited to see you return.
I want to see MFF succeed, not just launch another programme and compete for attention. I want to see a model that actually changes the industry for the better and remains sustainable in the long run.
Innovation deserves credit, absolutely. But transparency, simplicity and execution are what will ultimately earn traders' confidence.
Don't just build a different prop firm. Build one that traders can understand, trust and confidently recommend to others.
That's the kind of comeback the industry was waiting for.
@MyForexFunds @HaiderMFF @PropJoshD
7/ WHY THE MARKET IS DIVIDED
I understand both sides.
Traders want freedom, simple rules, transparent calculations and reliable payouts.
Firms need sustainable risk management, predictable exposure and protection against abusive trading behaviour.
These objectives don't always align perfectly.
But instead of introducing another traditional challenge with another list of restrictions, MFF is experimenting with a different approach.
And innovation will naturally bring questions.
8/ THE REAL TEST STARTS NOW
MFF management has acknowledged that it cannot convince everyone through explanations and historical data alone.
Actual trader experiences will ultimately determine how the market views Evolution.
The coming months will be important.
We'll see how the payout experience develops, how traders adapt their strategies, how the strike mechanism works in practice and whether the historical projections hold up.
That's what matters.
MY FINAL TAKE
I've seen this industry from different perspectives: as a trader, through customer support, community management and risk-related operations.
One thing I've learned is that a prop firm's success isn't determined only by how attractive its challenge looks.
It's about how the entire relationship between the firm and trader works over time.
I don't think Evolution should be judged solely by how unfamiliar its rules look.
But neither should it receive blind praise before the results are demonstrated.
Give the model a fair evaluation. Ask questions, analyse the rules and watch the actual results.
The industry doesn't need another firm copying everyone else. It needs firms willing to experiment, improve and prove their models through real trader experiences.
Let's see what MFF delivers this time.
@MyForexFunds @HaiderMFF @PropJoshD
If you think affiliate marketing is just about promoting a prop firm and collecting commissions, you're missing the bigger picture.
I want to show you what real affiliate marketing looks like from a trader's perspective.
I have some serious ideas for @PropFirmSea, and I want to build something different — a platform that brings real value to traders, not just another affiliate-driven recommendation website.
We've already seen several new platforms emerge after PropFirmMatch. But do we really need more of the same? I don't think so.
Our approach will be different. We'll keep recommendations as a separate section, allowing traders to discover new firms, platforms, opportunities and exclusive features.
The main focus will be transparency, innovation and giving traders something they haven't experienced before.
I'm not here to build another PropFirmMatch. I'm here to build PropFirmSea.
Let's change how affiliate marketing works in this industry. 🌊
Hey INTERN, Something seems to be changing at @fundingpips, and honestly, the community deserves some clarity.
Over the past few months, we've noticed several people who started their journeys at FundingPips gradually moving on to other opportunities.
A few examples:
• @cirendemirtrade started her content creation journey with FundingPips, eventually progressed to Marketing Flow Supervisor, and after around seven months moved to @FTMarketslive as Marketing Director.
• @lailayanCMO, who also began her journey with FundingPips, has now moved on to a CMO position elsewhere.
• We've also noticed some departures within the customer @fundingpipsmod team.
Of course, people move on, pursue new opportunities, and change companies. That's completely normal. But when multiple familiar faces from different departments leave within a relatively short period, it naturally raises questions.
What exactly is happening behind the scenes at FundingPips?
On X, we don't see much clarity about what's happening internally. Traders are left guessing, while the people who once represented the brand are gradually moving elsewhere.
We have leadership figures like CEO @Khldfx and Regional Business Development representative @avikkfp, and we believe this is a fair moment to ask for some transparency.
Is FundingPips going through an internal restructuring? Is there a major strategic shift underway? Or is this simply a series of individual career moves?
We're not making accusations, and we don't want to fuel unnecessary speculation.
But FundingPips has been one of the most recognisable names in the prop trading industry. Traders, partners, affiliates, and employees all deserve clarity about the direction of the company.
Is the FundingPips era entering a new chapter, or are we witnessing the beginning of something bigger?
I think we're looking at this from two different perspectives, and that's completely fine.
First, I genuinely appreciate the fact that @MyForexFunds is trying something different. The traditional CFD prop model has been recycled for years, with firms launching almost identical challenges and continuously introducing additional restrictions to make their models sustainable.
So yes, innovation is needed. Giving traders more freedom, reducing unnecessary restrictions and moving away from the usual consistency rules, news restrictions, minimum trading days and complicated payout cycles is something the industry should welcome.
But I think there's an important distinction that we're overlooking:
Trading freedom and rule simplicity are two completely different things.
The Evolution model might offer more freedom once traders understand it, but that doesn't necessarily mean the programme itself is easy to understand.
Partner and Intern statuses, strike configurations, switching conditions, recovery requirements, drawdown allowances and Reward Pool mechanics are quite a lot to process, especially for someone new to prop trading.
And that's where my concern comes from.
A trader shouldn't need to study an extensive rulebook, calculate multiple scenarios or constantly worry about which status they're operating under just to understand how their account works.
You mentioned that you've traded with over 30 prop firms and believe MFF offers the potential for six-figure payouts. That's great, and I genuinely hope traders can achieve those kinds of payouts without unnecessary conflicts.
But we also need to consider the experience of the wider trading community, not just experienced traders who already understand complex funding models.
I also disagree with the idea that questioning these rules makes someone a bad trader or someone who doesn't understand the potential. Constructive criticism is not hate. If anything, companies should welcome feedback before launching a product to a much wider audience.
My concern isn't that MFF is doing something different. It's that a potentially brilliant concept could lose a significant number of traders simply because its mechanics aren't communicated clearly enough.
My suggestion to MFF management would be simple:
- Keep the innovative funding model.
- Reduce unnecessary complexity in the strike and switching mechanisms.
- Provide clear, practical examples of every possible account scenario.
- Make drawdown calculations and account breach conditions completely transparent.
- Explain payout eligibility and withdrawal conditions without ambiguity.
- Make the entire system understandable even to someone purchasing their first prop firm account.
Remember, MFF had something that most firms spend years trying to build: brand recognition, community trust and enormous anticipation surrounding its comeback.
The industry was genuinely excited to see you return.
I want to see MFF succeed, not just launch another programme and compete for attention. I want to see a model that actually changes the industry for the better and remains sustainable in the long run.
Innovation deserves credit, absolutely. But transparency, simplicity and execution are what will ultimately earn traders' confidence.
Don't just build a different prop firm. Build one that traders can understand, trust and confidently recommend to others.
That's the kind of comeback the industry was waiting for.
@MyForexFunds @HaiderMFF @PropJoshD
A piece of honest feedback for @MyForexFunds management.
Remember the hype you had before? The whole industry was excited that MFF is coming back. But with these rules, you have completely killed that hype.
You guys have made the rules way too complicated for traders. With systems like the strike system and all these extra conditions, how do you expect a new trader to understand and follow them?
Honestly, with such complicated models, I don't think any trader would happily purchase an account from you.
Keep it simple. Traders want simple rules - like Max Drawdown, Daily Drawdown, and a Profit Target. That's it. Make it simple so that traders actually want to join you wholeheartedly.
When I read your recent post about the rules, I just ignored it completely. And I know I'm not the only one.
With such complications, it feels like there is no benefit in working with your firm anymore.
Especially new traders will never get into such complicated rules. Remember the hype you had before? The whole industry was excited that MFF is coming back. But with these rules and models, you have completely killed that hype.
I don't think you can regain that same position and hype you once had if you continue with this complicated approach. Please look at what other firms are doing - some are over-complicating things so much that traders can't even understand them. Don't be one of them.
Make it simple, make it trader-friendly.
@HaiderMFF
Let's start with @BlueGuardiancom.
Blue Guardian has made several promises to traders, including 24-hour payouts and other attractive benefits. But are these promises being delivered consistently?
Looking closer, many traders have reported delayed or pending payouts. Meanwhile, some affiliates appear to receive much faster payout approvals.
Why does there seem to be a difference in payout processing between regular traders and affiliates?
Another concern is the advertised 35% discount. While the discount remains visible, account prices appear to be increasing week after week.
Are traders actually getting a better deal, or are the base prices simply increasing while the discount stays the same?
These are genuine questions that deserve transparent answers.
@BlueGuardiancom @Shubhankan007 @seanbaint
Can you clarify the payout delays faced by regular traders and explain the ongoing pricing changes?
Traders deserve transparency, consistency, and equal treatment.
Hey everyone! I'm the founder of @PropFirmSea, and honestly, I handle almost everything myself except website development, because I have a team working on that. 😂
First of all, I'm a trader myself. I genuinely enjoy discussing prop firms, digging into their rules, understanding the industry, and reviewing the finer details that most people overlook.
I've been watching how different review platforms operate, and everyone seems to have their own way of presenting firms. But let's be real here. 😂
I want to ask you all something.
Most review platforms earn through affiliate partnerships. That's a business model, and there's nothing wrong with making money. But what if we built something where the traders benefit first, not just the platform or the prop firms?
Yes, I'm planning to partner with almost every prop firm because I understand how this industry works. If we want to make a difference, we also need to be part of the industry. However, PropFirmSea will also feature verified firms, with transparency and accountability being a priority.
There are some serious concerns in this industry that hardly anyone wants to discuss openly. I have a few things I'd particularly like to bring attention to, including:
1. @BlueGuardiancom
2. @BlueberryFunded
I have some serious questions and concerns that deserve proper discussion.
The website is currently under development, so give me a little time. I'm working towards building something different, with genuine reviews, exclusive offers, giveaways, and most importantly, a platform where traders' voices actually matter.
I'm not here to promise something extraordinary overnight. Let the work speak.
Stay tuned. Something different is coming.
— Founder, PropFirmSea 🌊
Guys, this community is the worst in this industry 😂
Only 3–4 people were handling FundedPlaza, and one of them was Gokul, the guy managing the page and handling affiliate partnerships with all the firms. During the Lucid offer, they introduced a "Buy One, Get Two Free" deal. This is the mentality of Indian people, or many people in general. We all know that out of 100%, only around 20–25% of people are able to pass an account, and out of those, only around 18% actually get a payout.
So FundedPlaza's affiliate earnings with Lucid were something around $600k–$700k, which they themselves mentioned in their post. The reality is that people massively bought accounts. Since they had promised a Buy One, Get Two Free offer, they obviously weren't going to pay for those extra accounts out of their own pocket. So they asked @TradingLucid to provide around 100 account codes. After the long controversy, they deleted the page and disappeared with the money, and yet this society still thinks they'll see an offer like that again. Lol.
The simple thought is that if you're generating sales for a firm, the firm is obviously going to listen to you. But this badass CEO @ajtradinglucid refused. I don't know what the reason was, but literally Gokul is an Indian person, and for an Indian person, $600k–$700k is lifetime earnings in India.
He partnered with many firms, generated sales, earned affiliate commissions, and at the end of the day, a trader has a very simple mentality: Buy an account, Get a payout, That's it.
And the main thing in India, and in many other countries, is that people become influencers and keep praising firms. Literally, this fucking society should think about the trader—how they're buying accounts and how they're trading. But no, just share the affiliate code and make people buy accounts.
Fucking society.
Haha, it's funny seeing so many threads about @TradingLucid and @propfirmsplaza lately. 🍿
Let me say one thing from my perspective.
As far as I know, Prop Firm Plaza isn't a large company—it's primarily managed by Gokul. Everyone is free to run their platform however they choose, but I personally don't agree with some of the things that have been happening. Still, it's interesting to watch everything unfold.
On the other hand, credit where it's due. The Lucid Trading team and @ajtradinglucid have built something impressive. Whether people like them or not, they've achieved milestones that deserve recognition. If the reported $458,043,650 in payouts is accurate, that's a remarkable achievement for any prop firm.
What disappoints me most isn't the competition between platforms—it's the impact it has on the trading community. Because of all this drama, I've seen traders from other countries making negative generalizations about Indian traders. That's simply unfair. The actions of a few people should never define an entire community or country.
I've worked in this industry for a long time, and I know many of the people and platforms involved. So for now, I'll just sit back, watch how everything develops, and let the facts speak for themselves.
At the end of the day, transparency, professionalism, and trust are what will matter most—not the loudest opinions.
The futures prop industry is getting really interesting to watch lately. 👀
We're seeing @Alpha_Futures_ changing its plans, and @TradingLucid seems to be moving in a direction where many Indian traders feel they aren't being valued the way they should be. If that's the experience traders are having, it's something the industry needs to pay attention to.
@GFFutures also feels like it's focusing more on engagement than trader experience at the moment. Their support system still needs significant improvement, and many traders report that they struggle to get assistance on X as well.
On the positive side:
• @fnfutures is currently doing an excellent job.
• @MyFundedFutures has always been solid, and they've become even more active recently.
• @fundedfamily still has several policies and rules that create confusion for traders. Greater transparency would make a huge difference.
• @Tradeify Select Plan is one of the strongest offerings in the futures space right now.
• @Topstep continues to perform consistently and remains one of the industry's most trusted names.
• @TakeProfitLLC is also doing impressive work and continues to improve its reputation.
There are still many futures firms in the market, and almost every one of them has strengths as well as weaknesses. No firm is perfect.
Over the coming weeks, I'll be reviewing every major futures prop firm closely—testing their support, evaluating their rules, checking payout experiences, measuring transparency, and speaking directly with their teams before publishing my conclusions.
The goal isn't to create unnecessary drama or hype. The goal is simple: Give traders honest, transparent, and unbiased information so they can make better decisions.
Let's see how the industry evolves. 🚀
Seeing too many platform issues, prop firm issues, manipulated reviews, and questionable rating practices across the industry.
Some platforms seem more focused on boosting ratings, promoting whoever benefits them, and chasing traffic than actually delivering value to traders.
Because of that, more and more people are now thinking about building their own prop firm review platforms. Competition is growing fast, but competition alone isn't enough.
The industry doesn't need 100 review sites. It needs one thing: trust.
Transparency. Accountability. Honest reviews. Verified experiences. Real data over marketing.
In the end, traders will decide who earns their trust. Let's see who builds for the community—and who builds only for clicks. 🚀
Seeing too many complaints about prop firm review sites and prop firms lately. In my opinion, it's actually a positive move for the industry.
If fake review sites, manipulated ratings, or misleading practices are being exposed, it pushes the industry toward more transparency and accountability. At the end of the day, traders deserve accurate information to make informed decisions—not biased reviews or hidden agendas. A trustworthy ecosystem benefits everyone in the long run.
Haha, it's funny seeing so many threads about @TradingLucid and @propfirmsplaza lately. 🍿
Let me say one thing from my perspective.
As far as I know, Prop Firm Plaza isn't a large company—it's primarily managed by Gokul. Everyone is free to run their platform however they choose, but I personally don't agree with some of the things that have been happening. Still, it's interesting to watch everything unfold.
On the other hand, credit where it's due. The Lucid Trading team and @ajtradinglucid have built something impressive. Whether people like them or not, they've achieved milestones that deserve recognition. If the reported $458,043,650 in payouts is accurate, that's a remarkable achievement for any prop firm.
What disappoints me most isn't the competition between platforms—it's the impact it has on the trading community. Because of all this drama, I've seen traders from other countries making negative generalizations about Indian traders. That's simply unfair. The actions of a few people should never define an entire community or country.
I've worked in this industry for a long time, and I know many of the people and platforms involved. So for now, I'll just sit back, watch how everything develops, and let the facts speak for themselves.
At the end of the day, transparency, professionalism, and trust are what will matter most—not the loudest opinions.