**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 and 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, and 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, and 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, and subsequently being blacklisted by multiple unrelated firms. That is an alarming business practice.
**This is exactly why the prop trading industry needs regulatory oversight and enforceable consumer protections.**
I intend to file formal complaints with the Federal Trade Commission and 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, and 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, thank you for responding. However, several serious concerns remain unresolved.
First, the term "false chargeback" came directly from Ment Funding's original communication, not from me. You are now characterizing this as "chargeback abuse," yet no evidence has been provided establishing that any dispute was abusive rather than legitimate.
A chargeback does not automatically constitute abuse. Consumers have legitimate reasons to dispute transactions, and labeling someone abusive without substantiated evidence is deeply concerning.
Your support team previously stated that no exception or removal process could be confirmed, even if the originating firm restored eligibility. They also refused to identify the firm responsible for the restriction. How can someone meaningfully challenge an allegation when they aren't even told where it originated?
I already went through Discord support under ticket 8608 repeatedly before posting this. They wouldn't identify the firm behind the allegation, substantiate it, or provide a meaningful review process. That's why I posted. Directing me back to the same unresolved channel doesn't help. I'm happy to discuss the circumstances and provide documentation if needed. But removing a review first without a clear path to resolution isn't reasonable.
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.
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
