In this article, we will be presenting the official statement of FundingTraders on PropFirmMatch’s recent delisting from their website.
After which, we will look into the cases that they have pointed out and share some facts to give traders more accurate insights to the cases and provide full transparency.
Official Statement: Our Status on PropFirmMatch (PFM)
Today, PropFirmMatch (PFM) announced the delisting of our firm from their platform. While we respect PFM’s commitment to industry transparency, we want to provide our community with the full context regarding this decision.
The Core Disagreement
The delisting stems from a difference in conclusion regarding a small number of specific cases. Specifically, a few instances of funded account denials and payout request denials.
Our Position:
Every denial issued by our team was made in strict accordance with our established Terms of Service (TOS).
The Process:
PFM requested information on these few cases and asked for concise summaries. Upon delivery, we explicitly invited their team to ask follow-up questions if they required deeper context.
The Outcome:
Rather than engaging in further dialogue or requesting additional documentation for these specific instances, PFM issued a notice of delisting.
Acknowledging Areas for Growth
We are not without faults. We acknowledge that in the past, there were lapses in communication. Specifically regarding the timeliness of responses to traders who violated our TOS.
Over the last two months, we have overhauled our support infrastructure. Today, we are proud to maintain an average response time of under one minute, ensuring our traders are never left in the dark.
Moving Forward
We remain steadfast in our mission to provide a transparent, rule-based trading environment. We appreciate the high standards PFM sets for the industry and are confident that our continued progress will lead to our reinstatement in the near future.
Reviewing the Cases
To ensure complete transparency, we are sharing the details of the few cases PFM’s compliance team questioned. We believe that by seeing the data for yourselves, you will have a fair and balanced perspective on the situation.
Case Overview: Get Transparent Insights on the Cases PropFirmMatch Pointed Out
Next, let’s look at the cases that PropFirmMatch stated where they did not agree with our conclusions. The emails, names, and other sensitive information has been censored to maintain user privacy.
Case #1: Trader Andrew
Background of the case: This was a case of payout denial and account closure due to group trading. Group trading is identified when a trader is linked with another trader through IP, trading patterns, and trade overlaps. Group trading is prohibited at FundingTraders. What does group trading mean? Copy trading or reverse (hedge) trading with another trader.
Execution: After the payout is requested, the risk team conducted a review on the trader’s activity across all accounts. During the investigation, the team found a flag of group trading through our automated risk detection software. They proceeded to review this manually and found the automated findings to be true. Due to this violation, the user’s profile was closed and the team submitted evidence of the findings to the user.
Findings: Identifying group trading requires multiple pillars. This includes IP logins on trader dashboard and trading platform, trading behavior, and trading patterns. Multiple pillars are used to ensure that the findings cannot be counted as just mere coincidence.
IP Discrepancy: On this case specifically, the trader was flagged for IP discrepancies that linked his profile with multiple other users. The linked users’ trading activities were compared to Andrew’s trading activity (on all accounts taken on our firm).
Group Trading: The team had identified multiple instances of coordinated trading between the linked users. This includes trade overlap (considering symbols, entries, and exits) in multiple instances – having an overlaps core between 86-91.50%. During the scan, there was a mix of copy and reverse trading which is a sign of an advanced group trading abuse activity.
What PropFirmMatch Disagreed With: PFM pointed out that there was no evidence of communication with Andrew before account closure, only after review.
According to our TOS, we have the right to close accounts and profiles after we have identified a breach of TOS. PFM did not go against our findings – they just did not like how it was executed.
What We Could Have Done Better: Allowing the user to keep their access to the dashboard with limited actions so that the trader will be able to reference their trades that were pointed out on the email communication regarding the violation.
What We Have Improved: All traders that have a payout request denied due to TOS violations will retain their access to the dashboard with limited features which will allow them to refer to the trades that are pointed out by the risk team.
Case #2: Trader Pablo
Background of the case: Trader Pablo had a payout amounting to $7,640.72. Due to errors in the payment method, the payout had been delayed for weeks. The trader was in constant communication with our team where the issue was explained.
Execution: The team approved Pablo’s payout and faced issues on the payment method. Pablo raised concerns about how slow the process is taking and the team could not give any further explanation as it’s a 3rd party payment method that had an issue. As soon as the payout was processed, the trader was informed and the trader was able to acknowledge the receipt of the payout.
Proof of Payout:
What PropFirmMatch Disagreed With: PFM pointed out this case as no proof of payment was showed to them. However, if they asked for it before presenting us the delisting email – we would have happily showed them the payout proof. Additionally, they did not like the generic escalation message from the team. We simply could not provide more information until the 3rd party had fixed the issue for us.
What We Could Have Done Better: We could have provided other payment methods that will help speed up the payout process. And also more specific details about the issue we were facing with the 3rd party payment platform.
What We Have Improved: We are working to add bank transfer as a payout method to give traders more options for receiving their payout – and also a more reliable way of receiving their reward.
Case #3: Trader Nicolas
Background of the case: Trader Nicolas’ account was terminated due to a repeated breach of unrealistic trading methods (specifically grid trading).
Execution: In August, 2025, the trader was warned for unrealistic trading methods after completing the trading objectives of the challenge phase. Despite the violation of the rule, the trader was given another chance by only giving a warning instead of a funded account denial. This was acknowledged by the trader.
On November 2025, the trader requested a payout which prompts a manual review by the risk team. The risk team identified that the trader engaged in unrealistic trading practices again even after the warning on August 2025. Due to this, the team had to deny the payout due to a repeat violation of the TOS violation that the trader was warned about on August.
It’s important to note that instead of just terminating the services with the user, the risk team offered a retake account under the Risk Management Group account to give the trader another chance to trade within our risk parameters.
Proof of Warning:
Proof of Repeated Behavior:
What PropFirmMatch Disagreed With: They did not see the proof of the exact trades that were categorized as “unrealistic trading method”. This is because their team had requested to make the case files concise. We have documentation of this and if they asked for it, we would have given it.
What We Could Have Done Better: Include the screenshots of the trades in question in the initial case file report.
What We Have Improved: We have automated comprehensive violation reports that is attached and sent to traders whenever a funded account is terminated or a payout is denied due to TOS violations. This will allow users to get a full overview of the decision and have transparent evidence presented to them.
Case #4: Trader Araz
Background of the case: Araz’s payout request of $3,500 was denied due to group trading detection during the payout review.
Findings: Group trading relies on three pillars as mentioned earlier. These are IP discrepancies, trading patterns, and trading behavior.
IP Discrepancies: Araz was provided with proof of his profile being linked to another user. This other user was then used to cross-examine the trading activities across all of their accounts at FundingTraders.
Group Trading: The risk team identified multiple instances of trade overlaps that had up to a 99.45% overlap score. This along with the IP detection proves that the trader was engaging in group trading which is prohibited in every prop firm.
Execution: On August 2025, the user was notified regarding this violation by email. This email showed complete proof of the trades in questions and the TOS statements regarding this violation. At the same time the email was sent, the users accounts and profile on the trader dashboard has been revoked. The proof was solid and the basis for termination is strong.
What PropFirmMatch Disagreed With: After the termination email was sent, the risk team no longer replied to Araz. Araz sent follow up emails on August 27 and 29 which were not responded. On November 19, 2025, Araz sent another follow up email which the team replied to instantly.
What We Could Have Done Better: The risk team should have responded to Araz on the 27th and 29th of August despite the findings being solid and that no other information could change the decision. Communicating with users regarding the final decision is still important.
What We Have Improved: A team within the risk department is assigned to handle post-service communications where if a trader asks for further clarifications on the rule – they will be provided with more information and evidence as necessary.
Case #5: Trader Eran
Background of the case: Eran had three complaints (1) Consistency Score calculation and (2) Payout Deduction and (3) Payout Delay. Eran has already been paid and the case has been closed.
Findings:
Consistency Score Calculation: The consistency score clarification was regarding how partial closures of trades are calculated for the consistency score. This detail of the consistency score is part of our help center and we have outlined this with Eran.
Payout Deduction: The team identified trading behavior that went against our TOS such as grid trading, high-impact news trading, and overexposure with correlated pairs. Since this is the first time Eran had violated these rules, the risk team decided to offer a 50% payout instead of a full account termination – as a warning to Eran to avoid these trading practices.
Payout Delay: The payout delay was also caused by a 3rd party payment error that we had to wait to be resolved first to avoid duplicate payments to the user.
Execution: The team had constant communication with Eran with regards to the consistency score clarification, payout deduction, and payout delay. However, during the payout delay, the team did not provide a specific reason as to why there is a payout delay and the status to the 3rd party error that we were facing.
What PropFirmMatch Disagreed With: Their team stated that there were no payout dates/amount shown and there was no explanation as to why the 50% payout was delayed for over a month. This is another detail that we could have shared if the PFM compliance team had asked further questions regarding the case.
What We Could Have Done Better: We could have shared more specific insights with the trader on the status of the 3rd party payment erorr. Additionally, we could have provided an alternative payout method to have a more speedy resolution instead of waiting for a 3rd party to fix their errors.
What We Have Improved: Similar to Case #2, We are working to add bank transfer as a payout method to give traders more options for receiving their payout – and also a more reliable way of receiving their reward.
Case #6: Trader Tyler
Background of the case: Tyler complained regarding (1) Missing trades from the dashboard’s tradelogs, (2) Two weeks of communications but the issue was not resolved, (3) The account was not eligible for payout request due to the missing trades.
Findings:
Missing trades from the dashboard: This was caused by an API error on the trading platform’s side. This issue caused a problem on the fetching of positions from the trading platform to our dashboard that calculates the consistency score which is crucial for payout request validation.
Lengthy Communications: Since this is an edge-case scenario (it doesn’t happen often), investigation from our developers and the trading platform’s team took longer than usual. However, we remained to work on the case actively during this period.
Eligibility for Payout Request: Because of the issue with position fetching, the consistency score was not calculated correctly, hence the user could not request payout. Since the fix required a big change to the code, the team manually inserted the trades according to the trading platform’s trade log which fixed this issue.
Payout Ineligibility: Once Tyler was able to request the payout after the tradelog fix was done, the risk team conducted a payout review which resulted to a news trading violation. On the specific account type that Tyler was trading, opening, closing, or holding a trade within 5 minutes before and after a news is prohibited. There were three trades that violated this and was also included in the account breach email that was sent to Tyler.
What PropFirmMatch Disagreed With: Their compliance team noted that there were no confirmation attached regarding the payout being processed. But in this case, this account was not eligible for a payout due to the news trading violation. This is also something that the PFM team could have clarified with us if they sent us further questions before stating the final decision of delistment.
Proof of violation:
What We Could Have Done Better: News trading violations should be automated and not just only on detected during the payout review. This will give traders a better funded trader experience.
What We Have Improved: The team has already built a semi-automated news trading tracker that notifies traders in advance regarding their news trades. A fully automated solution is currently being developed.
Case #7: Trader Anas
Background of the case: In February 2025, Anas had 4 complaints, (1) News Trading Extension, (2) Wrongful News Trading Consideration, (3) Partial Payout, (4) Profile Ban and Closure
Findings:
News Trading Extension: Anas claims this rule is new; however, it has always been a documented part of the Help Center for his specific challenge type. The policy states that if the majority of account profits result from trades influenced by high-impact news, the payout request will be invalidated and the trader must continue trading.
Notably, following his last payout extension, we issued an explicit warning: “Moving forward, we do not condone this behavior and further exercise of this behavior will result in account termination
Wrongful News Trading Consideration: One of the trades pointed out was a EURJPY trade that was held during the GBP high-impact news event: we would like to clarify that our guidelines at that time were not restricted to news directly related to the traded currency pair. Per our posted rules, any high-impact news event was considered a violation if used to influence profits.
Partial Payout: Consequently, we have deducted the profits generated from news trading and proceeded with a reduced payout (instead of direct denial). As this constitutes a repetition of a warned behavior (News Trading) which had previously been issued, we have moved to terminate the account after processing 70% of the requested payout as a gesture of goodwill.
Profile Ban: It is important to clarify that the trader was not banned from the platform. While this specific account was closed due to the aforementioned violations, Anas remains eligible to purchase new evaluation accounts and receive future payouts. We have never prohibited him from continuing his trading relationship with our firm.
To date, Anas has been paid over $20,000 on this specific account alone. This amount represents nearly 10x his initial investment, demonstrating that the team has consistently rewarded his performance whenever it aligned with our trading guidelines. Our decision to terminate this specific account is strictly a result of repeated rule violations, not a restriction on his ability to trade with us moving forward.
What PropFirmMatch Disagreed With: They referred to a “counting error,” the specifics of which were not entirely clear to us. If this was in reference to the EURJPY trade held during the GBP high-impact news event, we addressed this with Anas.
What We Could Have Done Better: Similar to case #6, an improvement on the news trading detection automation would help traders identify trades that are within the news trading window.
What We Have Improved: The team has already built a semi-automated news trading tracker that notifies traders in advance regarding their news trades. A fully automated solution is currently being developed.
Case #8: Trader Hedi
Background of the case: On April 2025, Hedi had a complaint regarding a payout request that was approved and then invalidated by the risk team a week later.
Findings:
Payout Invalidation: Initially, the payout was approved after clarifying a news trading concern with Hedi. The issue was due to a timezone adjustment on the trader dashboard. However, after further review of the account activity, the team caught that Hedi was using an EA to execute trades.
EA Investigation: During this time, the risk team conducted a review of the account. This was a special case as the trading platform indicated manual execution – however, the uniformity on the trades such as the duration, trading times, and trading duration caused a concern. The biggest factor that supports this case is that trades were regularly opened and closed for a whole day which is unrealistic for manual trading. It was later found out that an EA can be used while the trading platform shows that it was manual execution through a loophole.
Comparison on other accounts within the firm: The risk team then filtered this trading behavior and pattern across all accounts on the firm and have identified a group of abusers that were doing the exact same abuse that Hedi had done.
What PropFirmMatch Disagreed With: Their compliance team had pointed out that there was a fault in pre-approval of the payout and it exposed a “procedural control failure”. It is true that it is a poor user experience to have a payout approved and then invalidated afterwards.
However, there are certain edge cases like this where abusers would find loopholes that would go under the radar of the automated risk detections. In this instances, once we manually detect it – we would still have to enforce our TOS and carefully investigate the case in order to create ways of detecting this in the future to add to our risk software.
What We Could Have Done Better: Ever since this case, we implemented a required manual review to ensure that all traders are compliant before approving a payout request.
What We Have Improved: Today, our risk software has been upgraded with many automations that can scan for potential abuse based on trading behavior and style. This makes our risk team well equipped in identifying potential abuse.
Conclusion
We are glad to have this opportunity to present these cases to you and give you an insight on what is happening behind the scenes.
We would like to emphasize that we understand Prop Firm Match’s position and we appreciate their mission of maintaining high standards in the industry.
We are working to provide you a more transparent trading experience with us. There are many efforts that we are executing at the moment to increase transparency signals within our website, dashboard, and our whole trading experience.
If you’re reading this far, thank you for giving us an opportunity to show you our side of the story. Your feedback matters to us!
Should you have any complaints, please send a message to complaints@fundingtraders.com and our team will gladly assist you!
May the markets be ever in your favor
