**WARNING TO TRADERS**
**WARNING TO TRADERS: $10,000 SPENT — NOW BLACKLISTED ACROSS MULTIPLE PROP FIRMS OVER AN UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION**
I previously purchased a $1 million trading challenge through Ment Funding for approximately $10,000. I failed that evaluation due to my own risk-management mistakes. I accepted responsibility for that loss & had no issues with the company at the time.
When I recently attempted to purchase another challenge, Ment Funding informed me that I was restricted because of an alleged "false chargeback" involving another prop firm.
**I categorically dispute this allegation. It is completely false as presented, & Ment Funding has provided absolutely no evidence substantiating any wrongdoing.**
Despite repeated requests, they failed to identify the originating firm, provide transaction details, disclose supporting evidence, or offer a meaningful appeal or removal process.
Here are Ment Funding's own words:
**"We're unable to confirm an exception or removal process at this time."**
**"An eligibility confirmation alone does not necessarily remove the restriction across our network."**
**"Unfortunately, we're unable to provide a complete list of firms under the restricted network."**
Read that carefully.
They are effectively admitting that a trader can be blacklisted across multiple prop firms based on an undisclosed allegation, without being shown evidence, without a meaningful appeals process, & without even knowing which companies are enforcing the restriction.
**THIS IS A MAJOR RED FLAG FOR EVERY TRADER CONSIDERING PURCHASING AN EXPENSIVE CHALLENGE.**
What happens if you spend thousands of dollars on an evaluation, only to discover that an undisclosed network restriction prevents you from progressing toward funding? What protections do you have when the company cannot even explain how to correct potentially inaccurate information?
Even more disturbing is the treatment of chargebacks. Legitimate disputes happen. A prop firm might fail to provide purchased services, refuse to supply account credentials, or fail to resolve an account-compromise issue. Consumers have valid reasons to seek payment protection.
**A chargeback is not automatically fraud. Yet this company's policy appears to impose blanket restrictions without distinguishing legitimate consumer disputes from fraudulent conduct.**
Imagine being mistreated by one prop firm, legitimately disputing the transaction, & subsequently being blacklisted by multiple unrelated firms. That is an alarming business practice.
**This is exactly why the prop trading industry needs regulatory oversight & enforceable consumer protections.**
I intend to file formal complaints with the Federal Trade Commission & my state's Attorney General requesting examination of these practices for potential unfair or deceptive conduct and consumer-protection violations.
After spending approximately $10,000 with this company previously, I believe prospective customers deserve to know how Ment Funding handles disputed allegations, customer eligibility, & network-wide restrictions.
**My warning: Think very carefully before risking substantial money with a firm that cannot provide transparency, evidence, or a meaningful process to challenge adverse decisions.**
I would not recommend Ment Funding based on this experience.
UPDATE — RESPONSE TO MENT FUNDING:
Anton, you are now publicly claiming that I filed chargebacks & engaged in “chargeback abuse,” yet you have provided absolutely no evidence supporting these accusations.
You cannot identify the firm, the transaction, the date, or any documentation establishing that the alleged chargeback even occurred. You've also stated that you don't have access to the originating firm's information.
How can you accuse me of chargeback abuse when you cannot even substantiate the underlying allegation?
A flag from a payment processor or third-party service provider is not proof that I initiated a chargeback.
I was never asked for proof of anything Ment told me that couldn't provide any info on the chargeback & Best of Luck!
MENT FUNDING'S DISCORD RESPONSE: As per the terms and conditions you read - we can turn away from working with anyone - for any reason. That can just be final and our choice.
We aren’t going to name a random firm because we do not have that kind of relationship with firms or our service providers, payment processors, KYC verification - etc. If you started a chargeback with a firm you should deal with that firm as we don’t have that information. We can’t name firms for you - that’s something you should know. We wish you luck going forward and highly suggest you ensure you understand the rules of any firm you work with before doing so.
Ultra simple version: this client has engaged in chargebacks across (1 or more props) firms. As a result, he was blacklisted from certain service providers, payment processors, kyc gateways, etc. Client didn't read any of the terms and conditions. More is below if necessary.
Just to make this simple:
You filed a chargeback with a firm working with a similar payment processor (as in they've been approved to do so) and a similar service provider (as in they're approved) -
when you violated the T&C by disputing and initiating a chargeback, you instantly will appear as a flag somewhere across the chain; kyc, payment processor, service provider, etc. - and as a result, will be blacklisted. That's why you're blacklisted.
You cannot purchase an evaluation, and initiate a chargeback.
Yes though, if you can show us that the dispute has been taken care of on your side and that you haven't violated the T&C within the overall program, we'd be happy to chat and provide proof to our service providers, or any other necessary 3rd party vendors.
Or if u can demonstrate that you were scammed by another firm in any way, we can personally take that information to the necessary parties and would honor your case and stand by you.
Thus far, you have simply been flagged for chargeback abuse. That's against all T&C. Including Ment Funding. If the claim is that you haven't initiated a chargeback - please help us and provide more info in a ticket.
Edit: support ticket always via https://discord.gg/mentfunding . As per company policy, I highly suggest editing or removing the review itself with the threats present before reaching out to us.
You should take this issue up with the firm (or firms) you've engaged in creating chargeback (or chargebacks) with. We don't have access to those firms in any capacity so can't help you with that.
We also asked client for proof that the disputes were resolved. None was provided.
Anton
Ment Funding LLC
Passed the 100k challenge – great experience
I have a lot of experience with prop firms, and I passed the Ment Funding 100k evaluation. The rules are clear and the process was smooth from start to finish. The platform worked well and it was easy to track my progress. I recommend them to anyone looking for a serious prop firm. Now it’s time to focus on the funded account!
Had to write This with ai cause…
Had to write This with ai cause apparently my version had a lot of inappropriate words .
here's my case
I recently participated in your trading competition and finished with a return of +13.50%. During the competition I had only four open positions: one losing trade (−$965.25) and three profitable trades. My maximum lot size was 2.2, and I did not use any prohibited strategies such as Martingale, averaging down, or single high-risk “one-shot” trades.
When I checked the leaderboard, my account was marked as disqualified. This is the second time this has happened to me; on a previous occasion I was ranked #2 on the leaderboard and was also disqualified without a clear explanation.
According to the published leaderboard eligibility rules, traders must meet all of the following criteria to appear on the leaderboard:
At least 3 losing trades
Loss rate ≥ 10%
Max single-trade profit: $10,000 (exceeding this results in disqualification)
Equity drawdown ≥ 1% (largest drop from high to next low)
Profit factor between 1 and 10
Given that I had only one losing trade in this competition, I understand that I may not have met the “at least 3 losing trades” requirement. However, I would appreciate a more detailed explanation of which specific criteria my account failed to meet in both instances, and whether there is any way to view these metrics (number of losing trades, loss rate, max single-trade profit, equity drawdown, and profit factor) for my competition account.
i want to say the rules are dumb af cause i have a pretty good winrate so why would i need to lose 3 times if im competing ???
Hey man, this is Anton CEO over at Ment Funding,
We have an around the clock support team that would look at your case and help you with an answer if you open a ticket, I dont know why the trustpilot page is being treated as a support hotline while also dropping a 1-star for us.
That said, we have rules. The rules are made because we set out to make the fairest competition in the space. Why do we have a minimum of 3 losses? Because we want to ensure the trader has had AT LEAST a certain number of trades that helps show their winrates, profit factors, and other relevant profitability data.
There are so many firms out there without those rules - but I'm sure you've noticed that you won't even show on those leaderboards unless you literally gamble. So you clearly came here for a reason.
If you dislike the actual rules around the competition, those rules dont exist in many of our evaluations - which you are always free to purchase. But a competition is just that; a competition. And a competition has rules.
Our rules are formulated in a way that actually makes our system one of the most accurate and fairest in the space. Congratulations on your performance nonetheless. But the rules are written very clearly for a reason my man.
Anton
CEO Ment Funding LLC
