Very disappointing payout experience
Very disappointing payout experience
I’m extremely disappointed with my experience regarding a withdrawal. The company advertises a payout process of only a few days, but my withdrawal has been delayed well beyond the expected timeframe.
I contacted support, and their response was essentially that the withdrawal is “on the priority list” and being followed up with the Finance Team, but they could not provide any specific completion date.
What is frustrating is that traders are expected to strictly follow all the company’s rules, and any violation can result in immediate action on an account. I believe the same level of efficiency and respect for the stated rules should apply when it comes to processing payouts.
I understand that delays can sometimes happen, but customers deserve clear communication and, at minimum, a transparent explanation of what is causing the delay.
Based on my current experience, I would not recommend this company for anyone who considers reliable and timely payouts a priority.
⚠️ Confusing and contradictory…
⚠️ Confusing and contradictory information about the 5% daily drawdown
I purchased an AudaCity Capital FTP account and recently had the account breached even though my realized loss for the day was only around $798 on a $25,000 account.
AudaCity later explained that the reason was their 5% trailing daily drawdown, calculated from the highest equity reached during the trading day. In my case, they stated:
- Equity at breach: $23,469.43
- Daily drawdown threshold: $23,479.66
- Breach: $10.23 below the threshold
Their calculation implies that my equity had previously reached approximately $24,715, including floating/unrealized P&L.
The problem for me is the contradictory information on AudaCity's own website.
Their FTP Knowledge Center does explain that FTP uses a 5% trailing drawdown based on the highest equity reached during the day. However, other pages on their website describe the drawdown as static, including wording that says the loss limit is fixed and does not move upward as you profit.
That distinction is extremely important for a trader.
A trader can easily understand “5% daily loss on a $25,000 account” as a $1,250 daily allowance from the starting balance. A trailing-equity rule is fundamentally different because a temporary floating profit can raise the drawdown floor, even if that profit is never closed.
I am not saying that AudaCity's mathematical calculation was wrong after they explained it. Their calculation is mathematically consistent with a 5% trailing-equity rule.
My complaint is about clarity and consistency of the information provided to customers. These rules should be presented consistently and prominently before someone purchases an account.
For a prop firm, the difference between static 5% daily drawdown and 5% trailing intraday equity drawdown is huge and can completely change how a trader manages risk.
I hope AudaCity clarifies this publicly and makes the applicable FTP rule impossible to misunderstand before customers purchase an account.
Even by I'm not put any money with them anymore. Cheap but so many hidden rules!
They don't pay large profits
UPDATE – REGARDING AUDACITY CAPITAL'S RESPONSE
The response still does not answer the fundamental question: what specific published rule applicable to account 201645 was violated? It interprets the trading behaviour but does not identify the T&C clause allegedly breached.
1. Previous payout – $3,995.64
This actually supports the trader's position. The same account was traded using the same approach. Audacity monitored the activity, reviewed it and approved a previous payout. If this trading behaviour was incompatible with Audacity's Risk standards, why was no warning issued at that time? Why was trading allowed to continue until a substantially larger payout was requested?
2. The $11,431 trade was held for ~3 days
A longer trade is not automatically a violation. Audacity's published rules allow overnight/weekend positions. No clause has been identified establishing a maximum holding period or prohibiting a 3-day position. If no such rule existed, the duration cannot retrospectively become a violation simply because previous trades were shorter.
3. One trade generated most of the profit
Audacity publicly states there is no consistency rule. If a maximum percentage of profit was permitted from one trade/day, that rule and limit should be identifiable. Otherwise, one trade generating most of the profit is simply a fact, not evidence of a breach.
4. “Without this trade the account would be ~$1.4K negative”
This proves no violation. Any result changes if its best trade is removed. The $11,431 trade actually occurred and generated profit. The relevant issue remains: what published rule did it violate?
5. Three XAUUSD losses (~4.41%)
Three consecutive losses do not automatically constitute a breach. If 4.41% exceeded the permitted drawdown/risk limit, the applicable limit and breached clause should be identified. If it remained within permitted limits, calling it risky afterwards does not turn it into a violation.
6. Alleged “revenge trade”
This is an interpretation of the trader's intention, not proof of a contractual breach. If “revenge trading” was prohibited under objective criteria applicable to this account, those criteria and how this trade breached them should be identifiable.
7. “Confidential Risk methodology”
Disclosure of algorithms or confidential procedures is not being requested. The question is simply which rule was breached? How a violation is detected may be confidential; the rule traders are required to obey cannot be confidential. A trader cannot comply with an undisclosed rule.
8. No warning when the alleged violation occurred
Audacity knew about the July 23 losses when they occurred. The position size, duration and accumulating profit were visible in real time. Yet no warning of a rule violation was issued and there was no request to close the position. Why did the trading behaviour become unacceptable only when the payout was requested?
9. The $2,088.64 partial payment
The original review never claimed that Audacity paid nothing. The issue is that the full eligible profit was not paid, with the remainder withheld following a Risk assessment without identification of the specific published rule allegedly breached. A partial payment does not answer that issue.
10. The central question remains:
What exact clause of the T&C applicable to account 201645 between 6 July and 28 August 2026 was violated by the ~$11,431 profitable trade?
The clause, rule/limit and how the trade exceeded it should be clearly identifiable.
If no such published rule can be identified, the original concern remains: profit generated within the published rules was subsequently subjected to undisclosed internal Risk criteria at payout stage.
Audacity's right to establish Risk rules is not disputed. What is disputed is the application of unpublished criteria retrospectively after the trades were executed.
Traders must know the rules before they trade, not discover new criteria when they request their profits.
Hi,
We have reviewed this matter in detail and believe several important facts have been omitted from the review.
First, the suggestion that Audacity Capital simply refused to pay the trader because he generated a large profit is incorrect. The trader had previously received $3,995.64 from us, and $2,088.64 was also processed in connection with the payout request referenced in this review.
The remaining payout was not assessed on the basis that a trader is prohibited from making a large profit from a single trade. The account was subjected to a Risk review of the underlying trading behavior.
The distinction is important.
The approximately $11.4K winning position was held for approximately three days. The other trades reviewed on the account were generally held for minutes to hours. The position therefore represented a substantial deviation from the trader's observed trading pattern, in addition to being overwhelmingly responsible for the account's profitability.
The preceding trading activity was also material to the review. On 23 July, three consecutive XAUUSD positions resulted in approximately 4.41% of account equity being lost in a single day, with the trades opened within relatively short intervals of one another.
Most importantly, when the approximately $11.4K position is removed from the calculation, the account's result over the reviewed period would have been approximately $1.4K negative.
Consequently, the Risk concern was not “the trader made too much money.” It was the combination of a significant preceding loss sequence, materially different position duration, the characteristics of the position itself, and the fact that one atypical trade effectively transformed an otherwise negative account result into a positive one.
That is why the account was reviewed as a risk-management matter rather than simply a profitability matter.
We understand that the trader may disagree with the outcome. However, disagreement with a Risk determination does not change the underlying trading record.
We also cannot disclose confidential internal Risk methodology or account-review procedures publicly. What we can clarify is that the account was reviewed on the basis of its actual trading behavior and not simply because the trader generated a large profit.
The payment history and the trading record speak for themselves.
All the best for your future endeavors.
Rayyan - Operations & Client Relationships.
Audacity Capital.
