Funder pro denies payout after earned
Funder pro denies payout after earned. I belong to a LARGE trading group and I will spread the word on them. None of us will buy challenges from them again.
They don’t payout
The name should be changed to:
Thieves, scammers, or fraudsters.
Advice to all traders: do not purchase any account from FunderPro, as they do not pay any profits. My experience with them — after a month of trading effort and achieving high profits — they fabricated false excuses, claiming that I was using my device for more than one account. These false allegations were only used to refuse payment.
I contacted them multiple times with no result, and the request was escalated, but unfortunately with no benefit. The same responses and false claims were repeated every time. When I asked for evidence, none was provided.
Therefore, I urge all traders to be extremely cautious when dealing with such companies that lack credibility. Proof of this is that they have manipulated all their reviews on Trustpilot and currently have no ratings. In addition, their Instagram account suddenly disappeared, and I was banned from their Discord simply for telling the truth in front of other members.
I have two funded accounts. One of them was used, and profits were not paid. Therefore, there is no point in trading on the second account due to their false excuses for not paying. I requested a refund for both accounts, but there is no intention from their side to refund.
My message to the owner of this miserable company:
If you intend to build your wealth by stealing from poor people, then you will never have a happy life .
Remember my words.
Hi Mo,
We’re sorry to hear you feel this way. All account reviews are based on detailed system analysis and manual investigation, not on profitability or arbitrary decisions. These reviews consider broader patterns of account activity over time and are applied consistently across all traders in line with our Terms & Conditions.
FunderPro remains committed to paying traders who comply with our guidelines and maintaining a fair trading environment for all users. While we understand this outcome may be disappointing, the matter was thoroughly reviewed internally, and the decision remains
Title: BANNED for a policy they officially admit is PERMITTED! Proof of incompetence.
"I am a professional trader with 3 years of experience, and I am writing this to warn everyone about FunderPro’s unreliable automated systems and contradictory policies.
My funded account (#22252689) was terminated for 'shared IP addresses' because I switch between my Home Wi-Fi and Mobile Data (4G) in Morocco. When I challenged them, they refused to listen. However, I decided to test their transparency by asking their support team the EXACT same question from another email.
The Shocking Contradiction:
FunderPro’s official support (and their AI agent) explicitly confirmed to me in writing that:
'Switching networks (Wi-Fi/Mobile Data) is PERMITTED.'
'Shared or dynamic ISP IP ranges (common in Morocco) DO NOT constitute a violation on their own.'
'Enforcement is NOT based solely on IP overlap.'
Despite these official admissions, they still have my account blocked for the very reasons they claim are allowed! I have provided my unique Device Hardware ID (Huawei Y7 2019) to prove I am the sole user, yet they choose to ignore the facts and stick to their faulty automated flags.
If you are a trader in a country with dynamic IPs (like Morocco), stay away from FunderPro. They will take your money, and then ban you for using your local internet—even though their own support says it's okay. I have all the screenshots to prove this hypocrisy.
Account ID: 22252689
Status: Unfairly Breached"
Hi Amane,
Our systems continuously analyze account access data, including login patterns, to ensure activity reflects single-user access as required by our platform guidelines.
Following automated monitoring and a secondary manual review, repeated access patterns were identified that were inconsistent with individual account use, with multiple instances of overlapping IP footprint with our traders. Based on these findings, the account was closed in accordance with our Terms & Conditions.
They blocked my account 21601 without…
They blocked my account 21601 without notifying me, i want to attach their email as an evidence to prove that they are scammers. I never did arbitrage trading nor funderpro provides the evidence, I wrote an email and he responded like a pro scammers.
Dear Syed,
Thank you for providing a detailed overview of your trading methodology and for submitting your formal appeal.
The Risk and Compliance team has conducted a comprehensive manual re-evaluation of your account activity, specifically reviewing the points you raised regarding trade duration, execution style, and risk management parameters.
Despite your explanation, our internal audit confirms that the execution patterns within account ID 21601 consistently align with prohibited arbitrage strategies as defined in clause 13.8.
While we acknowledge your statement regarding your trading approach, our detection systems identify specific price-latency exploitation and feed-synchronization patterns that fall outside the scope of standard directional trading. Our decision is based on the underlying execution data rather than the specific tools used or the length of the holding time alone.
We understand this is not the outcome you were hoping for. However, to maintain the integrity of our trading environment and protect our platform infrastructure, we must apply our Terms and Conditions consistently across all accounts.
Please note we do not disclose the specific data used in our detection process to protect our proprietary security measures.
After careful consideration, the original decision remains unchanged, and the case is now considered closed.
Antonella
FunderPro
We’re sorry to hear you disagree with the outcome of the review. Please note that the decision regarding your account was not made arbitrarily.
The review identified execution patterns consistent with prohibited arbitrage activity based on underlying execution data and trading behavior, and was not solely based on trade duration or stated strategy.
We understand this outcome may be disappointing; however, the matter was thoroughly reviewed internally and the decision remains final.
Payout Denied After Multiple Changing “Violations”
UPDATE AFTER FUNDERPRO RESPONSE:
The response itself highlights the exact issue I experienced.
During the review process, the explanation behind the alleged violation changed multiple times:
* initially the concern was presented as 0.01 vs 0.23 lot trades
* later it shifted to 6 lot EURUSD vs 0.23 lot XAUUSD and “notional exposure”
At the same time:
* support-guided inactivity trades
* payout delays
* and a confirmed server-side “Auto trading disabled by server” issue
were acknowledged but ultimately dismissed as irrelevant.
I fully understand that firms evaluate “overall account behavior”, but if my trading approach was truly inconsistent with their expectations, then:
* why was no warning issued during actual trading activity?
* why did concerns only appear during payout stage?
* and why did the explanation behind the violation evolve throughout the review?
I also note that the same algorithmic strategy and risk methodology have been used consistently with other prop firms without similar concerns being raised.
My frustration is not only about the outcome itself, but about the lack of clear and consistent standards during the entire process.
------------------------------------------
Very disappointing experience with FunderPro.
I traded consistently using the same strategy and approximately the same risk profile (~1% risk per trade). I completed multiple trading cycles and only encountered issues once I requested a payout.
What makes this situation especially frustrating is that the explanation for the alleged “inconsistent trading” violation kept changing throughout the review process:
* Initially, they claimed the issue was related to 0.01 lot trades vs 0.23 lot trades.
* I then provided evidence that the 0.01 trades were:
* placed following support guidance to avoid inactivity breach after account reinstatement
* related to troubleshooting a confirmed “Auto trading disabled by server” issue, which was later resolved from their side.
* After this explanation, they changed the reasoning entirely and suddenly claimed the issue was actually between a 6 lot EURUSD trade and a 0.23 lot XAUUSD trade based on “notional exposure”.
So the justification behind the breach changed multiple times during the review.
There was also:
* a long payout delay due to a system-related issue
* an inactivity issue caused during that delay
* an appeal system problem where my old March appeal still appeared as active and blocked submission of a new one
Despite all the documentation, support tickets, screenshots, and explanations provided, the final response remained generic and outcome-driven rather than based on consistent review standards.
The most concerning part is that no warning or restriction was raised during the actual trading activity. The issue only appeared once a payout was requested.
Overall, this was one of the most exhausting and frustrating prop firm experiences I’ve had.
Hello Kari,
We’re sorry to hear about your experience and understand your frustration regarding the review process. Please note that trading reviews are conducted based on the overall account activity and risk profile across the lifecycle of the account, not solely on individual trades in isolation or the timing of a payout request.
As additional information is reviewed, further context may be provided to explain the findings in more detail; however, this does not mean the basis of the review has changed. Following multiple assessments, the account activity was ultimately found to be inconsistent with the expected trading behavior and risk approach outlined within our guidelines.
We also acknowledge the delays and technical issues you referenced and appreciate the time you took to provide supporting information throughout the process. While we understand this outcome is disappointing, the matter was thoroughly reviewed internally.
