Phoenix Trader Funding 35% and 22% Off TFeed Challenges

Hi Leonardo,
We understand your frustration, and we want to explain what happened.
For anyone reading: Leonardo passed his evaluation, and we promptly paid both payouts he requested on his funded account ($800 each), as he says himself. His account was then closed.
The account's results were far outside anything that program had ever produced. On a $50,000 account, he gained $5,849 on his first trading day, and $24,528 in four days. Phoenix constantly monitors traders, and those results are anything but usual, especially because he was on an account with a 30% consistency rule, implying that, after his first two days, he voluntarily pushed his profit target before withdrawal to an additional $10K in profits, which is... unusual to say the least.
We want to emphasize one thing: as these lines are written, Phoenix has run more than 5,000 customers ; that is enough to establish clear data about how a trader behaves, how a funded account behaves, what is a good trader, what is a bad trader, etc. And we can say without a shadow of a doubt that this customer has by far the highest PnL of any funded account we have ever had, by a wide margin, actually; it's not even close, and all of that in 4 days
The reality is that we were never able to figure out whether this person was cheating or not, and if so how he was cheating; assuming he didn't, it was clear that we missed something somewhere.
This customer case was at the center of our team discussion for a long period of time, and this started a massive internal overhaul of our system of anti-cheat detection, but also of our account rules; it was the catalyst for the Phoenix 3.0 release, which changed several rules for traders (none retroactively, of course), and the account of this trader, the Spark $50K Growth, was discontinued entirely because it was not profitable. Following this, we have also completely transformed the Live onboarding process to never have traders in such weird situations again.
Overall, this bad review is more than understandable; where we fell short is communication. Leonardo should have received a clear and final answer much sooner. On our side, we accept this bad review as a consequence of what happened, and we have taken every step we could to revamp our programs and our internal tools to make sure that this situation never happens again.
It was a first, and with all the changes and upgrades we made, we're confident it'll also be a last.
Regards,
Phoenix Team