Trusted Prop Hub

Abdullah, we reviewed both phases of your latest challenge alongside your full trading history with FundingPips. You passed both phases, and we recognize that. We also looked at how you managed risk during the challenge and how you traded across your previous Master accounts. That review informed the terms we offered for your next Master account. On your latest $100K challenge, four trade ideas in Phase 1 each lost at least 2% of the account size. In Phase 2, six trade ideas reached that threshold. The largest loss on a single trade idea was 3.1%, or roughly $3,100. Across your full history with FundingPips, including evaluations and Master accounts, 251 trade ideas each lost at least 2% of the account size. Of those, 63 lost at least 3%, including three that lost 5% or more. The largest loss on a single trade idea was 11.9%. You received more than $27,000 in rewards and spent about $20,000 with FundingPips, so you received more in rewards than you spent. Your combined trading P&L across 17 Master accounts was −$71,890, excluding payouts. The first figure describes what you received versus what you spent. The second describes how the accounts performed over time. During our Phase 2 review, we offered you the option to move to a Master account on the On-Demand reward cycle, with a striking system on each trade idea capped at 1% of the account size. We communicated that condition before issuing the account. This was an individual decision on your challenge. Your claim that we’re imposing this on every trader is false. Risk management is part of trading. Repeatedly taking outsized losses and counting on one big trade or one big day to make them back is gambling on the outcome. At the Master stage, we look at how consistently you control risk, especially when trades go against you. The decision and terms we offered you followed our trading review under Section 9(b)(iii) (Gambling Behavior), Section 9(d) (Account Restrictions), and Appendix A (Responsible Trading Policy) of our Terms & Conditions. The ban was a separate decision based on your conduct after the review. You were entitled to challenge the decision. We banned you because we concluded that you coordinated abusive posts targeting FundingPips and members of our team and used those posts to pressure us to reverse the decision. You said you would apologize publicly if your conduct matched what our CEO described. Based on our review, it did. We expect you to follow through on what you said.