Instant Funding — 20% OFF Any Account + Free Duplicate After Payout (November BOGO)

🚨 RUN WHILE YOU STILL CAN! THEY WILL ROB YOUR TIME AND MONEY! 🚨
​If you are thinking about buying a challenge or trusting this prop firm with your capital, STOP IMMEDIATELY. This is a massive red flag and a real warning about how this platform operates to ensure you NEVER see a single dime of your payouts.
​They are experts at marketing a dream, but when it’s time to cash out, they turn into a predatory machine designed to invent any excuse to steal your hard-earned profits. Here is exactly how they rig the game:
​1. The Payout Illusion: Moving Goalposts & Phantom Rules
​Forget about getting paid. You can pass their evaluation flawlessly, manage your risk perfectly, and follow every single written guideline to the letter. But the moment you hit that payout button, they will magically invent non-existent rules. They change their terms and conditions on the fly, applying retroactive restrictions that were never there when you paid for the challenge fee.
​2. The IP Frame-Up & Endless KYC Loops
​If you somehow manage to navigate their hidden traps and successfully request your profit split, they immediately switch to Plan B to lock you out of your funds:
​Fake IP Violations: They will falsely accuse you of "IP sharing," "crossed IPs," or using third-party account management without providing a single shred of actual technical evidence, wiping out your balance instantly.
​KYC Sabotage: They will trap you in a never-ending verification loop. They will demand absurd documentation, selfies at ridiculous angles, and repetitive forms over and over again just to freeze your account and mentally drain you until you give up.
​3. Rigged Market Execution & Killer Spreads
​Trading on their platform is playing a rigged game with loaded dice. Despite what they advertise, they hit you with insane, manipulated spreads across all markets that eat up your margins instantly. Even worse, their charts suffer from artificial price spikes and phantom candles that do not exist on any real, regulated liquidity feed. These spikes are triggered deliberately to hunt your Stop Loss, blow your daily drawdown limits, and terminate your funded status.
​❌ FINAL VERDICT: DO NOT WASTE YOUR CAPITAL
​This is not a legitimate prop firm looking to back talented traders; it is a cash-grab operation. Their entire business model relies on pocketing your challenge fees and using backend manipulation to avoid paying out successful traders.
​Do not fall for the trap. Protect your capital, protect your sanity, and look for transparent, highly-reviewed firms. Stay far away!

Let's talk logically now, if any of you understand logic. If I receive the same responses as before, I'll know the company is a bunch of fools, and I won't listen to you anymore. I'll only try to further tarnish your already damaged reputation because of these decisions.
First, any of you can contact me, and I'll show you that I've never had two accounts simultaneously to open counter-trades. I always work with only one account until it's burned, then I buy another.
Second, I know the rules of counter-trades very well, and I know I haven't followed them. If I had, I wouldn't be saying anything.
Third, in your responses to prove I opened counter-trades, you only sent two trades. First, their opening times are different. Second, their closing times are different. Third, the lot sizes are different, meaning there's no loss protection. The contract size in my account is ten times that of the other account.
To clarify further, the account you sent, supposedly with which I opened two counter-trades, isn't in my name, my family name, or my friends' names. It might not even be from my country. You didn't tell me the account's nationality. I'm from Morocco, and the second account might be from another country I know nothing about. Something
So, if I were to open a lot of 1 and 10 minutes later someone opens a lot of 0.1, that's normal. I can't prevent the world from opening a lot of 0.1 against me. If both accounts were in my name, yes, it would be a rule violation, but two different lot trades at different times, and I don't even know which country the account is from, for you to consider it a crossover trade, you're either being idiots or calling me an idiot because this nonsense is completely unbelievable.
Just answer me this: if someone in Morocco opens a buy lot of 1 and 10 minutes later someone in India, for example, opens a sell lot of 0.1, would that be considered crossover trading? People, everyone has their own perspective on the market. Have mercy on us!
email :
I want just one yes or no answer. If you have any sense, if I open a buy position of 1 lot with a risk of $2000, and 10 minutes later someone in India (or I don't know which other country) opens a sell position of 0.1 lot with a risk of $200, would you consider this a reverse trade, even though it's 10 times the risk and at a different time? If no, give me my money back. If yes, may God curse you, because it's theft.

Instant Funding is removing my negative reviews over they scammed me out of $300 with IF1 "1 Day Trade Account" which wasnt stated in the email special sent by them. Add this bad review so others dont get scammed

This is a scam funded dont and dont and dont join it run away everthing is poor they just want to earn more money a lot of laws tha make u breach account even if u have a pay out they breach ur account so hope u all out from this funded

Account #8087332 – $3,125 payout denied after profitable trading and approved KYC
My experience:
– Multiple challenge fees were accepted by the company
– Trading activity was fully permitted over an extended period
– KYC verification was successfully completed and approved on my main trading account
– No restrictions, warnings, or compliance notifications were issued during active trading
– Profit was generated under normal trading conditions
– Only after a payout request was submitted did compliance concerns begin to appear
Throughout the dispute, the explanations provided by the company changed over time and included: – UK geolocation / VPN risk signals
– Shared device or network environment
– Multiple identities
– Multiple dashboards/accounts
– Later: “multiple KYC profiles” linked to the same device environment
In later responses, the company clarified that: – the VPN/geolocation issue was only a “risk signal” and not a confirmed violation
– KYC approval remained valid at onboarding stage
– compliance reviews are often finalized during payout-stage audits
– “the review was triggered by the payout request”
– “the review process is independent of account activity and operates on its own timeline”
It is important to clarify several facts:
– only one account was ever KYC-verified and used for trading under my identity
– all trading activity was conducted by me personally
– trading was performed from a single device and environment
– there was no copy trading, simultaneous trading, account management, or coordinated activity between traders
– the second email/account referenced by the company was never KYC-verified or used as a funded verified trading profile
The company’s final position is that the issue relates to account structure and shared device linkage under their internal interpretation of “multiple identities” and risk policy enforcement.
However, the core concern remains the timing and consistency of enforcement.
If the company considered this structure to be a critical compliance violation, then: – why were payments continuously accepted, – why was KYC approved, – why was trading activity fully allowed, – and why were no restrictions or warnings applied before profitable trading and payout eligibility were reached?
Another important concern is that the platform rules do not appear to contain a direct and explicit prohibition clearly stating that a user may not register more than one account/email belonging to themselves in the straightforward manner used by some other prop firms.
Instead, the interpretation was applied broadly during payout review after trading activity had already been completed.
This creates the appearance of delayed or retrospective enforcement rather than a restriction clearly enforced during onboarding or active trading.
Throughout the dispute process, the company’s responses focused primarily on justifying the payout denial rather than resolving the inconsistencies raised during the dispute.
Despite multiple requests for clarification, no technical evidence, detailed audit timeline, timestamps, or specific detection data were provided regarding when the alleged violation was identified and why no enforcement action occurred earlier during onboarding, KYC approval, or active trading.
I also want to note that each time I posted reviews regarding this experience, the company flagged them through Trustpilot as allegedly “not based on a genuine experience,” which temporarily removed them from public view.
In each case, I provided supporting documentation to Trustpilot confirming my trading relationship and account activity with Instant Funding, and the reviews were reinstated following Trustpilot’s verification process.
For transparency purposes, I will also be publishing a detailed YouTube video covering the full timeline of this case, including the complete email correspondence and responses provided throughout the dispute process.
Given the absence of a transparent resolution process and the lack of detailed supporting evidence provided during the dispute, I am currently reviewing additional consumer and payment-related dispute options available to me and intend to continue documenting how this case evolves over time.
I am not publishing this review to make emotional accusations, but to provide a factual, documented account of how this case was handled from onboarding through payout denial.