Instant Funding: 37% Off Clarity Range Accounts

Before buying instant funding account I did check all rules and checked through FAQ for like maximum lots sizes for each account and trading pair and there was 0.08 lots size on 2.5k account for Metals, but when I started to scale in on my trade on GOLD I've realised that maximum lots size I could open was 0.03 not 0.08 as stated on the websites FAQ. After I got in touch with the customer service on the live chat where they told me that actually Leverage has been lowered temporarily due to volatility, but it was not updated on the website, because of that I had opened positions and got refused to get refunded. Please do not bother using this company and waste your time on crap!

My experience with Instant Funding has been extremely disappointing and frustrating. I would strongly advise traders to carefully consider how the company handles disputes before purchasing an account.
Instant Funding cancelled my account **#8115699** for an alleged Reverse Trading and Group Hedging violation. I strongly dispute the conclusion and am deeply dissatisfied with the way the company handled my questions and requests for clarification.
My previous account, **#8109964**, was purchased on 20 July 2026 and closed on 7 September 2026. I purchased account #8115699 on the same day. I held only one Instant Funding account at a time.
The company alleged that my XAUUSD trades matched opposite positions on another account. According to its responses, approximately 5 trades out of my 113 trades on account #8109964 and one trade out of my 47 trades on account #8115699 were identified as matches.
I understand that trading rules must be enforced. However, **when a company makes a serious allegation that results in account cancellation, it should provide a sufficiently clear explanation of why the evidence establishes a violation.**
I repeatedly asked Instant Funding to clarify what distinguished the alleged reverse trading from independently placed trades that happened to overlap in the same market. Trading involves buyers and sellers, and traders can independently take opposite positions on the same instrument. Similar trade directions, lot sizes and overlapping times raise questions, but I wanted to understand what specifically supported the conclusion in my case.
I asked whether the Risk Team had identified any evidence connecting me to the other trader, such as a shared IP address, account-access connection or other indication of coordination. I did not ask the company to disclose another trader's identity or private information. I asked whether relevant evidence of a connection had been identified and how the rule was applied.
The responses were deeply unsatisfactory. Support stated that it could not verify whether coordination had been established, could not confirm the precise scope of the internal assessment, and could not disclose further findings. I was repeatedly directed back to screenshots that the company said contained all the evidence it could share.
After several exchanges and an escalation to the Risk Team, the company declared its decision final and closed the ticket.
**This is the central problem: I received a final decision, but my key questions about the reasoning behind that decision remain unanswered.** Being told that a decision is final is not the same as providing a satisfactory explanation for it.
I cannot independently determine what the Risk Team may have seen internally. Equally, I cannot accept an allegation without being given enough information to understand why my activity was classified as prohibited conduct.
I am not asking for preferential treatment or for the rules to be ignored. I am asking for a fair, transparent and meaningful explanation when a trader's account is cancelled on the basis of a serious allegation.
The company may believe that its internal assessment is sufficient, but from my perspective as the affected customer, the process has left me unable to meaningfully challenge the conclusion. My concerns were repeatedly raised, yet the final response was that nothing further would be provided.
**My verdict: a very poor dispute-resolution experience.** I am dissatisfied not only with the cancellation but also with the lack of a satisfactory explanation and the decision to close the matter without addressing my central questions.
I recommend that prospective traders read the rules carefully, preserve their trading records and screenshots, and keep copies of all correspondence in case a dispute arises.
I am publishing this review to share my own experience and help other traders make an informed decision. I would welcome a meaningful explanation from Instant Funding, but the company has informed me that the decision is final and the case is closed.
Dear Traders, do not trust Instant Funding , they will close your a/c anytime without giving any proper proof and explanation.

Disappointing experience with Instant Funding – Disputed copy trading allegations and rejected $3,005 payout
I am extremely disappointed with my experience with Instant Funding.
My account was terminated based on allegations of copy trading, reverse trading, and group account management. I strongly dispute these allegations because I trade independently and do not knowingly coordinate my trades with other traders.
Instant Funding provided screenshots comparing trading activities across different accounts as justification for its decision. However, the account IDs were blurred, meaning I could not identify the accounts being compared or establish whether they belonged to me or completely unrelated traders.
I mainly traded XAUUSD (gold), one of the most actively traded instruments in the market. Independent traders can naturally trade the same instrument, in the same direction, around similar market conditions, and sometimes with similar lot sizes. Similar trading patterns alone do not establish that traders are copying or coordinating with each other.
I also raised concerns about the timestamps and sequences of the trades shown in the screenshots. Some trades had different opening and closing times, and I asked the company to explain how these records demonstrated actual copy trading or reverse trading. I requested a proper trade-by-trade explanation, supported by evidence, rather than simply being given conclusions based on similarities.
I contacted support, explained my position, and requested a careful review. Although my concerns were acknowledged, the company eventually maintained its termination decision without providing sufficiently detailed evidence for me to understand or properly challenge the allegations.
The payout situation makes this experience even more concerning.
I submitted a payout request for $3,005, and the dashboard initially showed the payout status as Pending. After submitting the payout request, my ability to place trades was disabled, although I could still log in to my account.
Approximately 24 hours later, I received an email informing me that my payout had been rejected because of the same copy-trading and reverse-trading allegations.
I want to make it clear that I dispute the underlying allegations. I do not believe I should lose my account and the payout I requested based on conclusions that have not been adequately explained or supported with transparent evidence.
My main concerns are:
* I have not knowingly copied another trader’s trades.
* I have not knowingly coordinated trading activity with other traders.
* I have not knowingly participated in reverse trading or group account management.
* The account IDs in the company’s screenshots were blurred, preventing me from identifying the accounts being compared.
* I requested an explanation of the actual trade timings, execution sequences, and evidence supporting the allegations.
* My $3,005 payout was initially marked Pending.
* My trading functionality was disabled after I submitted the payout request.
* Approximately 24 hours later, my payout was rejected based on the disputed allegations.
I understand that prop firms need rules against copy trading, reverse trading, and coordinated account management. I have no objection to legitimate enforcement of these rules. However, serious accusations that result in account termination and rejected payouts should be supported by clear, specific, and verifiable evidence.
What I am asking for is simple:
1. A genuinely independent review of my trading activity.
2. Specific evidence demonstrating how my trades supposedly constituted copy trading or reverse trading.
3. A clear explanation of which accounts and transactions were compared, using consistent anonymised references.
4. A fair reconsideration of my account termination.
5. A separate review and reconsideration of my rejected $3,005 payout.
I joined Instant Funding expecting transparent rules and fair treatment. I am not asking for special treatment; I am asking for transparency, consistency, and a fair opportunity to defend myself.
I hope Instant Funding takes this review seriously and provides an evidence-based explanation rather than simply repeating that its decision is final. My original gmail is banned on trust pilot so i am send review from my secondary mail my original mail from wich i am trading with instant fundind is nirviksitoula54@ and I have supporting screenshots, payout records, and email correspondence available to verify the timeline and the allegations if require but i cant attach in here trust pilot team can plzz enable to post my poof also

they cause a fake breached on my account and they are not responding- 145541

I submitted my payout on the 25th of September till now there's no update about it they don't reject it nor approve it but the policy says 48 business working hours but that already passed I can't even trace my payout because I can't access the instant funding website all of the sudden