PropShield 🔱

"It opened only the affiliate link of the firm selected by the trader." No. I selected YOUR profile page, and Chrome shows the link destination right in the video. It was your own page, not Vest. I clicked Decline on your cookie banner. I clicked your profile. The tab I was on got sent to Vest through your affiliate link, and a new tab opened your page on top so I'd never notice. Then I went to Vest myself through Google, and your code MATCH was already sitting at checkout. "User-initiated click." "Low single-digit percentage." Stop downplaying it. The video speaks for itself.

OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM MANAGEMENT I want to address a situation involving one of our giveaway winners who has recently made public accusations against our company. Let’s put the facts straight. This trader received a $10,000 giveaway account and generated approximately $1,200 in trading profits. He subsequently submitted a reward withdrawal request. However, like all our giveaway accounts, this account is subject to specific terms and conditions, including a 40% consistency rule, which must be satisfied before a reward withdrawal can be approved. He did not meet the consistency requirements. Now, here is where things get interesting. Our support team did not simply reject his request and tell him that he would never receive his reward. He was clearly informed that he could continue trading until he met the 40% consistency requirement and then become eligible for his reward withdrawal. His response was that meeting the consistency requirement was difficult for him. He subsequently requested an account reset. Following internal discussions, we were even willing to consider giving him another opportunity to prove himself through a reset. However, instead of continuing the process or respecting the rules he agreed to, he chose to approach influencers on Twitter, claiming that we had refused to pay his profits and publicly calling our company a scam. Let’s make one important distinction: His reward withdrawal request was not rejected. His account had simply not yet met the requirements for reward eligibility. He was explicitly told to continue trading until he satisfied the 40% consistency rule. These are two completely different situations. Regarding the reset request, I want to clarify that the request was not formally rejected either. However, following his actions and the attempt to put public pressure on our company, I will personally ensure that no exceptional treatment or additional opportunity is granted. Let me make something absolutely clear: You are no different from any other trader on our platform. It doesn’t matter whether you have 10 followers or 100,000 followers. You will receive exactly the same treatment as everyone else. We will NEVER give someone preferential treatment simply because they have an audience, connections with influencers, or the ability to put public pressure on our company. Think about every other trader who follows the rules without asking for special treatment. Why should someone with a social media following receive an advantage over them? That would be fundamentally unfair. If we give someone an exception because they threaten to damage our reputation, what message does that send to every other trader who plays by the rules? We have retained the relevant support conversations and evidence, including the explanation of the consistency requirements, his response stating that meeting the rule was difficult, and the subsequent discussions regarding a possible reset. We are fully prepared to make the relevant evidence available to demonstrate what actually happened. I would rather lose a customer, an influencer relationship, or a marketing opportunity than compromise fairness for thousands of other traders. Nobody is above the rules. Nobody gets special treatment. And nobody can pressure us into changing our decisions. Our rules apply equally to everyone, regardless of their social media following or influence. This is my position as management, and I will stand by it. End of story.