Below is the full explaination from supergrok: Try it yourself. Yes, the post is largely evasive marketing that doesn’t hold up against Vest’s own Terms of Service or the observable structure of its markets.⁠X Justin (@perpv2, founder of Vest) is responding to questions about Vest Markets / Vest Capital (a perpetual futures exchange + funded-trader/prop product focused on things like NQ-USD perps). He claims Vest is “100% designed as an A-Book,” defines A-book vs B-book in the standard way (A-book routes to a real market and earns from fees/spreads, not client losses; B-book takes the other side), notes that the public CLOB is not identical to the CME, and says anyone can provide liquidity or take the other side of funded traders. He also downplays broad ToS language as normal legal protection. Core problems with the claims 1. Their binding Prop Terms of Service directly contradict the “real capital / A-book” marketing. The official Prop Terms (updated October 14, 2026) state that next.vestmarkets.com is “a simulated proprietary trading program,” that all accounts, including Instant Funded Accounts, are simulated, and that “no real trading capital, assets, margin, or collateral are credited or entrusted to you.” Users submit “Trade Ideas”; they do not execute live trades. Any live trading (if it happens at all) is done by Vest or affiliates for their own accounts. Payouts come from general corporate funds; Vest does not represent that they are funded by profitable live trading. Instant accounts are explicitly “a virtual Program designation, not an account containing assets funded for your benefit.”⁠Docs.vestmarkets Product docs and marketing talk about “real Vest capital, not simulated,” but the Terms (the agreement you accept) govern, and they include non-reliance language on social media/marketing statements. Justin’s “iTunes nuclear weapons clause” comparison is weak—the simulation language is central and specific, not a random boilerplate joke. 2. Order-book evidence shows a single dominant quoting algorithm, not a diverse real market. Independent analyses (e.g., by @esytradez and others) of NQ order-book snapshots show one maker posting symmetrical fixed-size blocks on both sides for long periods. Bid size matched ask size the large majority of the time (~94% in one set of snapshots; similar high percentages in others), most levels were exact multiples of a fixed block size (~3.4 NQ / ~$100k notional in examples), and median trade sizes matched that block. This is the classic signature of a single quoting algo, not organic multi-participant liquidity.⁠Alexfirdaus Justin has previously described the laddered quotes as “a passive quoting algorithm that exists purely to ensure ample liquidity.” He has not clearly stated whose capital it uses or what percentage of funded volume actually fills against external independent participants versus that source. “Anyone can take the other side” is not the same as anyone does. If the primary maker is Vest or an affiliate (terms explicitly allow hedging on the affiliated Vest Exchange), then a funded trader’s win is that capital’s loss—which matches Justin’s own definition of B-book. Mark price being the mid of that book also means the same entity can influence the prices used for PnL and liquidations. 3. The economics of average traders still rely on fees, not external market profits. Critics have run the numbers using Vest’s own fee/drawdown/split structures. For zero-edge (“coin-flip”) traders, expected payouts are largely covered by the evaluation fees themselves rather than by capturing profits from external counterparties. Eval pricing appears set such that the firm does better when the overall population underperforms a fair outcome after splits, affiliates, etc. Instant accounts are closer to break-even on paper. This is the classic prop-firm model regardless of the A-book label. High claimed pass rates (~30%, presented as well above industry average) and payout percentages do not change the fee-funded math for the average account. 4. Price and liquidity differences are real and material. Justin acknowledges that Vest’s NQ-USD perp is not the CME market, that the tape can differ, and that liquidity is thinner. Analyses have shown periods where Vest’s NQ makes moves the CME does not (or of different magnitude), which matters at the high effective leverage offered. Funded accounts are judged against that thinner, potentially differently moving book. Bottom line The post relies on theoretical possibility (“anyone can place orders,” “textbook A-book design,” funding rates go to traders not the house) and broad legal disclaimers while sidestepping the concrete questions that matter: who actually quotes the bulk of the book, what share of funded flow hits that maker versus independent external participants, how mark vs index are calculated in practice, and why the ToS are written the way they are. Those gaps, plus the direct conflict between marketing/docs and the binding Terms, plus the order-book structure, make the strong “100% A-Book / we win when you win / profits don’t come from our losses” framing look like marketing that doesn’t survive scrutiny of their own documents and public market data. Vest has raised meaningful capital, engages publicly, and processes payouts (they claim relatively high payout rates). Some of the “simulated” language is common in the prop space for legal/regulatory reasons. But the specific claims in this post do not resolve the inconsistencies raised by critics. The unanswered questions in the replies (especially from @esytradez) are the ones that would actually settle it.