Prop Firm Hub | Page 1400 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Featured US Prop Firms

Similar Threads

Anyone trading with a Prop firm 31 replies

So I accepted a Prop Trading job in South Beach Miami 44 replies

prop firm new model - my trading journey 871 replies

Attachments: Prop Firm Hub
Exit Attachments

Prop Firm Hub

  • #27,981
  • Jan 9, 2024 8:48pm Jan 9, 2024 8:48pm
Quoting pipmaster77
{quote} Just got my live account on the high stakes this past Friday. The high stakes is the only model of theirs I can recommend.
Thats the one that I have an interest in. Thank you.
  • #27,982
  • Jan 9, 2024 8:50pm Jan 9, 2024 8:50pm
Quoting AaronPriest
{quote} They have multiple liquidity providers, and that's a closely guarded secret with each prop firm (ones that don't use a white label reseller/broker like Eightcap anyway), but they have said that Interactive Brokers is one of them. I don't think anyone knows the rest.
Thought that might be top secret with the props. Eightcap has bad reviews. Thank you.
  • #27,983
  • Jan 9, 2024 9:14pm Jan 9, 2024 9:14pm
Quoting acetrader
{quote} Thought that might be top secret with the props. Eightcap has bad reviews. Thank you.
Yeah, they DON'T use Eightcap, LOL
  • #27,984
  • Jan 9, 2024 10:09pm Jan 9, 2024 10:09pm
Quoting PropDude1234
{quote}MFF were paying out, but they were also lying and manipulating conditions (albeit the CFTC didn't quite represent it wholly accurately) whilst the CEO was buying multi-million USD mansions, Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Bugatis etc. They were, rather bizarrely, making the conditions worse for the rare people they did STP / put in the live market. Why would they make it harder for people trading actual money? Bizarre. FTMO seem like straight shooters, though. Although you never know without regulatory oversight.
I am assuming you are involved in dashboard tech and not trading tech considering you just made a stupid statement about STP.
  • #27,985
  • Jan 9, 2024 10:26pm Jan 9, 2024 10:26pm
Quoting Cryptosurf
{quote} Don’t be naive. The only reason “not” to participate in US markets is solely due to regulatory agencies threatening action of some sorts.
If that was the case, instead of announcing an unclear reason, which is extremely fishy and affected their reputation, why don't they just claim it was not their fault, it's all due to the CFTC or regulators, just like they do with other countries that in the sanction lists, give customers a proper, objective reason? That's just my two cents tho, maybe you're right, maybe they just like CableJ said just pure panic behavior.
  • #27,986
  • Jan 9, 2024 10:28pm Jan 9, 2024 10:28pm
Explains the discounts by FTMO lately. You can always tell something is up when the prop firms do something radical. Like when they changed into unlimited suddenly out of nowhere like a domino effects. Then acted surprised when MFF got taken down as if they had no idea.

This world is globalized now obviously. But for some reason whoever pulls the breaks might just settle to keep the ban of Forex in US, no idea why. Maybe because like in Germany they can regulate the markets through the govts already easily across the whole trading spectrum itself. While US is a beast of its own with its freedom acts. Unlike any other place. So it must happen through external means as in external "regulators".
  • #27,987
  • Jan 9, 2024 10:34pm Jan 9, 2024 10:34pm
My take is they got a letter.

When you get a letter, you don't say you got a letter, as you spook the horses.

CFTC has to send many letters now because they punished one and not the other, and despite what many may hope, the props are all the same in how they operate on a technical basis, the arbitrary bans are the difference. Even if someone may seem like a "straight shooter".

FTMO has been banning a lot of folks lately, maybe this has something to do with it.
  • #27,988
  • Jan 9, 2024 11:04pm Jan 9, 2024 11:04pm
Quoting Takisd
My take is they got a letter. When you get a letter, you don't say you got a letter, as you spook the horses. CFTC has to send many letters now because they punished one and not the other, and despite what many may hope, the props are all the same in how they operate on a technical basis, the arbitrary bans are the difference. Even if someone may seem like a "straight shooter". FTMO has been banning a lot of folks lately, maybe this has something to do with it.
what's your opinion on what FTMO's legal team & management are thinking by banning new US customers but still allowing their existing US traders to operate. If they are responding to the CFTC, I can't see how they believe that will fly in the eyes of the CFTC. it doesn't seem to make any logical sense.
  • #27,989
  • Jan 9, 2024 11:07pm Jan 9, 2024 11:07pm
Quoting labu
Explains the discounts by FTMO lately. You can always tell something is up when the prop firms do something radical. Like when they changed into unlimited suddenly out of nowhere like a domino effects. Then acted surprised when MFF got taken down as if they had no idea. This world is globalized now obviously. But for some reason whoever pulls the breaks might just settle to keep the ban of Forex in US, no idea why. Maybe because like in Germany they can regulate the markets through the govts already easily across the whole trading spectrum itself....
I mean CFD trading is legal in the UK and EU unlike the US so wouldn't be surprised if this ban is just kept to the US. If these 'prop firms' start to get regulated in Europe I also wouldn't be surprised if it's not a total shutdown but more that they just have to follow the same rules normal forex brokers do (like making clear the % of people that lose money) rather than a total banning - but I have no idea tbh
  • #27,990
  • Jan 10, 2024 12:47am Jan 10, 2024 12:47am
Quoting youngD
MFFX static offer is only available from dashboard when you login. The other offer Uprofit is not good because you pay activation fee. I now see mistake instead micro contract they writed "20 macros " ) Edit I looked at MFFX discord announcement and it says "stay above 28.500 to make withdrawal" which might mean there is no safety buffer. {image}
Makes sense because max loss (static) is 1500. So 30000-1500=28500.
  • #27,991
  • Jan 10, 2024 1:01am Jan 10, 2024 1:01am
Quoting PropDude1234
{quote}MFF were paying out, but they were also lying and manipulating conditions (albeit the CFTC didn't quite represent it wholly accurately) whilst the CEO was buying multi-million USD mansions, Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Bugatis etc. They were, rather bizarrely, making the conditions worse for the rare people they did STP / put in the live market. Why would they make it harder for people trading actual money? Bizarre. FTMO seem like straight shooters, though. Although you never know without regulatory oversight.
That's not true. Demo traders were having better conditions than market. STP were simply getting market conditions. And some STP were high frequency and/or high volume so they were being hit with market conditions that they were not used in the demo environment.

BTW, what about if they were lying and the CEO was living like a monk in a monastery or giving all profits away to charity ? Would that change the facts in dispute ?
  • #27,992
  • Jan 10, 2024 1:04am Jan 10, 2024 1:04am
Quoting longcanlun12
{quote} If that was the case, instead of announcing an unclear reason, which is extremely fishy and affected their reputation, why don't they just claim it was not their fault, it's all due to the CFTC or regulators, just like they do with other countries that in the sanction lists, give customers a proper, objective reason? That's just my two cents tho, maybe you're right, maybe they just like CableJ said just pure panic behavior.
They would never do that because that would be assuming that they are not sure or confident that they are law abiding. It would even even prejudicial in a future legal case if they said that.
Therefore a general vague statement is clearly a better reason (and it's obvious that the reason is the MFF case).
  • #27,993
  • Jan 10, 2024 1:05am Jan 10, 2024 1:05am
Quoting Takisd
My take is they got a letter. When you get a letter, you don't say you got a letter, as you spook the horses. CFTC has to send many letters now because they punished one and not the other, and despite what many may hope, the props are all the same in how they operate on a technical basis, the arbitrary bans are the difference. Even if someone may seem like a "straight shooter". FTMO has been banning a lot of folks lately, maybe this has something to do with it.
what is your source for this banning with FTMO ?
  • #27,994
  • Jan 10, 2024 1:09am Jan 10, 2024 1:09am
Quoting CableJ
{quote} what's your opinion on what FTMO's legal team & management are thinking by banning new US customers but still allowing their existing US traders to operate. If they are responding to the CFTC, I can't see how they believe that will fly in the eyes of the CFTC. it doesn't seem to make any logical sense.
From reputation point of view (for the rest of the word), banning also funded traders could be bad.
Besides, they may have analyzed how much they would have to reimburse to those that didn't get to a payout and compare that to how many accounts will be alive in 3 or 6 months because they have those numbers.
  • #27,995
  • Jan 10, 2024 1:11am Jan 10, 2024 1:11am
Quoting Cryptosurf
{quote} Some do, some don’t. Apex has the option of a one time (10 years) fee.
Where did you see that ?
  • #27,996
  • Jan 10, 2024 1:12am Jan 10, 2024 1:12am
Quoting CableJ
welp.... FTMO has all of the sudden been doing discounts the past few months and they were just forced to ban 30% of the prop purchasing market... that is not good for their bottom line. FTMO is also banking and located in the EU. FTMO, their vendors and payment processors can be easily reached by the same CFTC extraterritorial court orders that shut down MFF.
This may scare the remaining semi-decent props and lead them to do the same. US will end up with just the artists like Bespoke, Cue Banks, Surge and so.
  • #27,997
  • Jan 10, 2024 3:08am Jan 10, 2024 3:08am
Quoting Capablanca
{quote} Where did you see that ?
You have the option on PA accounts to chose monthly sub or one time/10 year sub
Trade with confidence, trade without fear.
  • #27,998
  • Jan 10, 2024 3:10am Jan 10, 2024 3:10am
Not hearing much about E8 Funding these days, what views does anyone have on them at this time?
  • #27,999
  • Jan 10, 2024 3:15am Jan 10, 2024 3:15am
Quoting PropDude1234
{quote}MFF were paying out, but they were also lying and manipulating conditions

This is clearly right. It would have been completely ridiculous (and surely unlawful, too) for the regulators not to act on the whistleblower’s information.


Quoting PropDude1234
FTMO seem like straight shooters, though. Although you never know without regulatory oversight.

Right again - though some less well-informed and more misguided members here really don’t like hearing this (especially from people with real industry experience).

Thanks for posting here.
  • #28,000
  • Jan 10, 2024 3:32am Jan 10, 2024 3:32am
Quoting PropDude1234
Murtuza Kazmi the MFF CEO submitted his affidavit as part of the on-going CFTC / OSC investigations on the 8th of January. As part of his 'defence' he specifically names several props firms and provides examples of them doing the same. It literally has a screenshot of FTMO in his affidavit as can be seen in the attachment as an example of another company doing the same. The CFTC will see that. FTMO are the most similar to MFF insofar as they operate their own MetaQuote licences rather than outsourcing the 'brokerage' aspect to an actual regulated...
And some more were mentioned in the affidavit
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: affidavit.png Size: 37 KB
68 traders viewing now