Hello friend
Hello friend
This is a highly suspicious and fraudulent company, especially targeting users in Pakistan. I strongly request all my brothers to stay away from this company and not waste their money.
Our admin, Waqas Naseer, was also treated unfairly. His payout was rejected without any valid reason, and his account was also breached (closed). When he provided complete proof, the company responded irresponsibly, saying: “Once we reject a payout, it will not be given again, and the account cannot be reopened.”
This is extremely disappointing and unprofessional behavior. It is better to avoid such companies altogether.
---
If you want, I can make it more aggressive, legal-style, or short for social media
Instant funding
Everything you're saying is a lie to avoid paying me what I'm owed. I trade independently, and all my trades are my own. I keep a record of every single transaction. I know perfectly well that you're lying and making up flimsy, baseless excuses. I will tell my YouTube channel's clients to avoid this fraudulent company and work with the highly reputable We Master Trade.
Hello Elyamani,
Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback. We understand that situations involving account closures and declined withdrawals can be frustrating, and we appreciate the opportunity to clarify the matter.
Your account was reviewed by our risk and compliance systems after a withdrawal request was submitted. During this review, the trading activity on the account showed a strong correlation with another account’s activity. Our monitoring process analyzes multiple factors, including trading patterns, execution timing, position behavior, and overall consistency of trades across accounts. Based on this analysis, the activity was identified as matching patterns typically associated with copy trading or externally managed trading.
Under our trading rules, all accounts must be traded independently. The use of copy trading services, shared signals, automated copying tools, or third-party account management is strictly prohibited because it creates an unfair advantage and undermines the integrity of the program for other traders. For this reason, when such activity is confirmed, the account is terminated in accordance with our policies.
It is also important to clarify that the timestamp referenced in the review reflects the moment the violation was detected and confirmed by the system. The determination is not based on a single trade or one specific moment, but rather on a broader evaluation of trading behavior across the account.
We understand that this outcome may not be the one you were hoping for, but the decision was made following a full review by our risk and compliance team and is consistent with the trading rules that apply to all accounts. These rules exist to maintain a fair and transparent environment for all traders participating in the program.
For full transparency, we encourage reviewing the program guidelines available here:
https://instantfunding.com/trading-rules
We appreciate you sharing your perspective and thank you for the time you spent trading with us.
Instant Funding Support Team
Unfair Payout Rejection & Poor Support Response
I had a very disappointing experience with this prop firm regarding my payout request and account handling.
I requested a payout after successfully completing all requirements and trading for around 15 days. After that, I was asked to attend a risk interview, which I scheduled at the earliest available time. I waited 5 days for the meeting, completed it, and was told everything was fine and in order.
However, the very next day, my payout was rejected and all my accounts were marked as breached without providing any clear or verifiable evidence. The reason given was “account management,” but I want to clearly state that all trading and account activity was handled solely by me. There was no third-party involvement, no copy trading, and no account sharing.
I requested proof multiple times and even offered to go through additional verification, but no concrete evidence was provided. On top of that, I opened multiple support tickets and sent several emails, but received little to no response.
This situation caused significant inconvenience. I spent around 23 days in total (trading + waiting + delays), and as a trader, time is extremely important.
Additionally, my active accounts were also breached under the same reasoning, and despite acting in good faith, no refund or fair resolution was provided.
Based on my experience, I was not provided with any authentic or verifiable reason for these actions, which raises serious concerns about transparency and fairness.
I would advise other traders to proceed with caution and carefully evaluate their experience before committing to this firm.
I am still open to a fair resolution and hope the company will reconsider and handle this matter professionally. Dear Support Team,
Thank you for your response.
I would like to clarify that I have fully cooperated with your company throughout the entire process, including attending the risk interview and being available for any additional verification or meeting if required.
However, despite your claims, I have not been provided with any concrete proof or verifiable evidence that my account was managed by any other person. I clearly state that all trading activities and account management were conducted solely by me.
If your company believes otherwise, I kindly request that you provide specific evidence, such as proof of copy trading, IP mismatch, account sharing, or any third-party involvement. I am fully prepared to review and respond to any such evidence.
At this stage, if your company does not wish to continue working with me and is unable to process my payout, I respectfully request a full refund of the payments made for my active accounts. To the best of my knowledge, I have not violated any rules.
If no evidence is provided and the payout cannot be processed, I would prefer to discontinue my relationship with your firm and continue my trading journey elsewhere.
I request that this matter be handled fairly and professionally. I look forward to your response.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Hello Menna,
Thank you for sharing your feedback. We understand that situations involving payout reviews and account restrictions can be frustrating, and we appreciate the opportunity to clarify what occurred.
As part of our standard compliance process, your account was selected for additional verification by our Risk Team prior to payout processing. This process includes a risk interview, which you attended. Following that interview and a review of the information provided, the Risk Team determined that the trading activity on the account did not sufficiently demonstrate that the account was being managed independently by you. Based on this assessment, the accounts were closed in accordance with our policies.
Please note that all relevant information and explanations regarding this decision were shared with you during the review process. The outcome was based on the findings of the Risk Team after evaluating the trading behavior and the responses provided during the interview.
Instant Funding’s requirement for additional verification, including a risk interview where applicable, is clearly outlined in our Terms and Conditions under Clause 12: Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) and Risk Team Verification. This clause allows our team to request further verification at any stage of the account lifecycle, including during payout reviews, to ensure trading activity is legitimate and compliant with our risk framework.
In simple terms, this clause allows us to:
• Request additional verification when required to ensure compliance and account integrity.
• Conduct a risk interview to confirm trader identity, verify KYC/AML compliance, and ensure understanding and adherence to trading rules.
• Review trading behavior where unusual or suspicious patterns are identified.
• Request supporting documentation or explanations related to trading activity when necessary.
• Suspend payouts or exclude trading results if the verification process is not successfully completed.
These measures are not intended to create obstacles but to maintain a fair, transparent, and compliant trading environment for all traders on the platform. The same verification standards apply equally to all accounts when additional clarification is required.
After the completion of the review and interview, the Risk Team confirmed that the account activity did not meet the required verification standards, and therefore the accounts were closed in line with the Terms and Conditions accepted at the time of purchase.
For transparency, you can review the full Terms and Conditions here:
https://instantfunding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Acello-General-Terms-and-Conditions.pdf]https://instantfunding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Acello-General-Terms-and-Conditions.pdf
While we understand this outcome may not be the one you hoped for, the review has been completed and the decision stands based on the findings of the Risk Team.
We appreciate your time with Instant Funding and thank you for sharing your perspective.
Instant Funding Support Team
Misleading Rules, Contradictory Enforcement, and Profits Withheld
🚩They Closed My Funded Account Using a Rule That Doesn’t Exist in Their Own Terms
Instant Funding closed my funded account and withheld my profits using a rule that is not clearly defined, not consistently applied, and contradicts their own communications.
I followed the rules exactly as they were written, traded consistently, and generated profits—only to have my account closed using a definition of “risk” that is nowhere stated in their official guidelines.
What they enforce and what they publish are not the same thing, and I have the emails to prove it.
Here’s exactly what happened.
Their website states:
“Risk per Trade Idea
You may not risk more than 1% of your starting account balance at any time in one trade idea. A trade idea includes all open positions on a single instrument in the same direction (Buy or Sell). Closing and reopening a position in the same direction on the same instrument within 10 minutes is treated as the same trade idea and does not reset the limit. Exceeding this limit will result in a hard breach.”
That’s it.
There is no definition of how “risk” is calculated. No mention of:
* stop-loss distance
* entry-to-stop calculations
* lot size formulas
* Yet when they closed my account, they told me:
“Dear Trader,
I’m reaching out regarding some recent findings on your account (can't say due to guidelines). Our monitoring system has detected a serious breach of our Gambling and Over-Leveraging Rule, specifically the 1% risk/loss per trade threshold, which applies to funded accounts.
As outlined in our trading guidelines:
"You may not risk more than 1% of your account balance on a single trade idea. A trade idea includes all open positions on a single instrument in the same direction (Buy or Sell). Exceeding this limit is classified as gambling and will result in a hard breach.”
Please note that risk is calculated as the distance between Entry and Stop Loss (Entry–SL).
If your Stop Loss risk exceeds 1% of your starting balance, it is also considered a violation of this rule.
These rules are in place to ensure a fair and responsible trading environment. You can review the full details of this policy here”
Calling stop-loss risk “also considered” a violation proves it is not the defined rule, but an added interpretation applied during enforcement.
If this were truly the rule, it would be clearly written—not introduced after the fact.
🚩 The Core Problem
There are two completely different versions of the rule:
* The website version → vague 1% limit
* The enforced version → hidden stop-loss formula
You cannot enforce a rule using a definition that is not written anywhere in the actual rule.
🚩Stop-Loss Contradiction (This is where it really falls apart)
They later sent an email on March 20th, 2026:
“All trades must have a Stop Loss set within 60 seconds… this rule has been introduced…” (temporary measure)
Let’s be clear:
If risk has always been based on stop-loss distance, then:
why were stop losses not always required?
why was this introduced later?
and why was it temporary?
That completely destroys their claim that the rule was “consistent.”
Even worse:
* The email never said stop-loss distance must stay within 1%
* It never said stop-loss placement determines a hard breach
So traders were told to use stop losses—but not how they would be used to fail you.
🚩 “Hard Breach” That Wasn’t Immediate
They claim this is an instant hard breach.
Reality:
* I continued trading
* I was only told at the payout stage
Their explanation:
“The breach was recorded in real time in the backend…”
That’s meaningless.
If the trader has no visibility, it is not real-time enforcement.
It’s retroactive enforcement after profits are made.
🚩 Conflicting Definitions of Risk
They told me:
“Risk is based on stop-loss distance”
But publicly here in trust pilot, they've said:
“The 1% rule is measured on realized losses”
Those are two completely different calculations.
They are switching definitions depending on the situation.
🚩 What This Really Means
* The rule does not define how risk is calculated
* The calculation method is introduced after the fact
* A key requirement (stop loss) was added later—and temporarily
* Enforcement happens without real-time transparency
* Different explanations are used to justify the same action
And based on all of that:
* My account was closed
* My profits were denied
* And I was told the decision is “final”
🚩 Conclusion
This is not a misunderstanding.
This is a rule being:
* vaguely written
* flexibly interpreted
* and selectively enforced
You cannot follow a rule that is not clearly defined in the first place.
If you’re considering Instant Funding, understand this:
The rules you read are not necessarily the rules they enforce.
Proceed carefully.
Hello Daniel,
Thank you for taking the time to share such a detailed explanation of your concerns. We appreciate the effort you have put into reviewing the rule wording and outlining your perspective.
We understand that your main concern relates to how the 1% risk per trade idea rule is defined and how the calculation method was applied to your account. To clarify, the 1% rule is intended to limit the potential exposure of a trade at the moment it is opened. In practice, the only measurable way to determine this exposure in advance is by evaluating the distance between the entry price and the stop-loss level, combined with the position size. This reflects the maximum loss the trade is intended to carry at the time of execution and is therefore used by the risk monitoring system to determine whether the trade exceeds the permitted risk threshold.
Regarding the 1% Risk Restriction introduced on March 30, the purpose of that update was to strengthen risk management practices during periods of heightened market volatility. The rule did not redefine how risk is calculated; rather, it ensured that trades have a clearly defined risk parameter in place shortly after entry. This helps both the trader and the risk monitoring system identify the intended maximum exposure for the trade. The introduction of this requirement was therefore an additional protective measure and does not change the underlying logic of how potential trade risk is evaluated.
You also raised the concern that the breach notification occurred at the payout stage rather than immediately after the trade. In situations involving rule violations such as this one, the monitoring system records the breach at the moment it occurs in the backend. However, account closure and communication may follow later after the activity is reviewed and verified. This can create the impression that the rule is being applied retrospectively, but the violation itself is recorded at the time the trade exceeds the permitted threshold.
We understand that this process can be frustrating, particularly when the breach becomes visible only after trading has continued. However, after reviewing the trade records associated with your account, the risk exposure calculated at the time of entry exceeded the allowed 1% threshold for a single trade idea. Because the 1% rule is classified as a hard breach, the account closure was applied in accordance with the program’s risk management policies.
We appreciate the detailed points you raised regarding rule clarity and communication. Feedback like this is valuable, and we will ensure your comments are shared internally with the relevant teams as we continue to refine how our rules and guidelines are presented to traders.
After a full review of the trading activity and the rule framework applied, the decision regarding the account remains unchanged and we are unable to reinstate the account or adjust the outcome.
Thank you again for taking the time to present your concerns and for engaging with us throughout this review.
Instant Funding Support Team
