Prop Challenge Calculator

In the last 60 days (January to February 2026), the prop firm industry has entered a phase of aggressive "compliance tightening." Several major players have triggered serious community red flags due to payout delays, support "ghosting," and tech-provider instability.

Here are the firms showing the most concerning red flags right now:

1. Apex Trader Funding (Significant Payout Backlog)
Apex has dominated the "red flag" discussions in early 2026. While they remain one of the largest firms, the "friction" for traders has reached a boiling point.

1. The Red Flag: Payout processing times have ballooned to 10–21 business days for many traders [Jan/Feb 2026 reports].
   
   
2. Support Ghosting: Traders are reporting that support tickets are being marked as "Solved" or "Closed" without any actual response or payment being issued.
   
   
3. "Whimsical" Denials: Recent reports show an uptick in denials based on subjective "professionalism" clauses, even when no hard math rules were broken.

2. The Funded Trader (TFT) (The "Infinite Queue")
TFT has struggled with its reputation since 2024, but the last 60 days have seen a resurgence of "liquidity crisis" rumors.

1. The Red Flag: A massive backlog of unpaid traders, some claiming they have been waiting for payouts for over 12 months.
2. Communication Breakdown: The firm frequently promises "updates" and "transparency" while the actual number of processed payouts remains stagnant relative to the queue.

3. Futures Firms using "ProjectX" (Tech Transition Risk)
A major industry shift occurred recently with the tech provider ProjectX announcing it will end its "Third-Party Service Offering" on February 28, 2026.

 

1. Affected Firms: Tradify, FuturesElite, Top One Futures, and several smaller futures props.
2. The Red Flag: While some firms claim a "smooth transition," the sudden exit of a primary tech backbone creates a high risk of frozen accounts, lost trading data, and delayed payouts during the migration. If you are with a firm using ProjectX, the "silence" regarding their new tech stack is a major warning sign.

Specific "Abusive" Red Flags Observed Recently
Firms that haven't shut down are instead using "Invisible Rules" to protect their bottom line during this 2026 liquidity squeeze:

1. The KYC Stall: Asking for "Selfies with today's newspaper" or notarized documents during a payout request to buy the firm 14 extra days of liquidity.
2. HFT/Latency Scapegoating: Firms like Kortana and others that allow HFT (High-Frequency Trading) to pass the challenge are now retroactively banning those same traders at the payout window, claiming "toxic flow" or "simulated abuse."
3. MAE (Max Adverse Excursion) Audit: A new favorite tactic where a payout is denied because your open trade went "too far into the red" before hitting profit, which the firm retroactively labels as "unprofessional risk management."

Summary of Current Risk Levels
Prop FirmPrimary Red Flag (Last 60 Days) Risk Level
Apex Trader Funding Support ghosting & 15+ day payout delays. HIGH
The Funded Trader Year-long payout backlog. CRITICAL
ProjectX Users Tech provider exit (Feb 28 deadline). MODERATE

Peer-to-Peer Advice: If a firm's "Payout Certificate" gallery on Twitter/X is full, but the "Comments" section is full of people asking where their money is, that is your definitive signal. In 2026, a "Payout Certificate" is just a JPEG; a bank transfer is the only thing that counts.

WillssFX (William)

The Focus: The "Style Mismatch" and B-Book Conflict
Extended Summary: William provides a deep dive into the "A-Book vs. B-Book" conflict. He argues that as retail prop firms face liquidity crunches in 2026, they have moved from "automated rule-breaking" to "Manual Style Audits." He explains that if your trading strategy is profitable but "not hedgeable" (i.e., you trade during low-volume sessions where the firm can't easily copy your trades in the real market), you are flagged as a liability.

1. [00:01:45] The Conflict of Interest: William explains that since the firm is the counterparty to your trade, your profit is their loss.
2. [00:06:12] The Asian Session Trap: He documents cases where payouts were denied because traders were profitable during "low liquidity" hours. The firm claimed these trades "exploited simulated price feeds" that wouldn't exist in a real market.
3. [00:11:30] The "Not a Professional" Clause: He discusses the "Whimsical Trading" rule, where a human auditor decides your strategy is "gambling" even if you never broke a hard rule.
4. [00:16:21] Blacklisting Profitable Traders: William warns that firms are now blacklisting traders who have multiple successful payouts, using "Style Mismatch" as the official reason to close accounts.

Titans Of Tomorrow (Solomon Andrew Interview)

The Focus: The $7,000 Payout Disaster and Lot Size Consistency
Extended Summary: This interview dives into the "Friction" traders face at FundedNext. Solomon Andrew discusses a specific "payout disaster" where a trader had their $7,000 profit voided due to "Style Inconsistency."

1. [00:15:30] The $7,000 Denial: Solomon walks through the story of a trader who passed the challenge and was ready for their first major payout.
2. [00:32:45] Disclosure After the Fact: He explains that the "Consistency Rule" was only fully explained to the trader after the payout was requested, not during the challenge.
3. [00:45:00] Lot Size Consistency Trap: He reveals that firms now track the standard deviation of your lot sizes. If you trade 10.0 lots to pass, but trade 0.1 lots for your "minimum trading days," they deny the payout.
4. [01:14:30] Holding Profits Hostage: Solomon concludes that these rules are designed to keep the money in the account, forcing the trader to take "real" risk again, hoping they blow the account before the next 14-day payout window opens.

Below are the most recent, source-backed statistics I can find on retail “evaluation/challenge” prop firms (FX/CFD + futures), as of 18 Feb 2026. Keep in mind: most industry-wide numbers are not audited and often depend on what the denominator is (accounts vs individuals; “funded” vs “paid out”).
Latest “hard” numbers (with dates)
1) Total payouts tracked (industry subset)

1. $324,963,316 in payouts were tracked for 2025 on Prop Firm Match (only for firms that integrated their tracker).
2. Top payout volumes (2025): FundedNext ~$107.8M, FundingPips ~$97.1M, FundedNext Futures ~$46.9M.
3. Important caveat: tracker doesn’t include some major firms (example mentioned: FTMO, The5ers).

2) Pass rates → payout rates (large dataset)
Finance Magnates cited FPFX Tech’s survey/data covering ~300,000 prop accounts:

1. ~14% passed the challenge and got a funded account
2. ~45% of funded accounts achieved at least one payout
3. That implies ~7% of all starters got a payout
4. Average payout ~4% of plan size

3) Futures prop example with published annual stats (Topstep)
Topstep publishes annual “Trader Performance Statistics” (calendar year 2025):

1. 16.8% of Trading Combines initiated were completed and advanced to Funded Level
2. 33.3% of individuals at the Funded Level received a payout
3. 0.71% of individuals in an Express Funded Account were “called up” to a Live Funded Account

4) Scale metrics from a major FX prop (FTMO)
FTMO’s own site currently states:

1. 3.5M+ customers worldwide
2. $500M+ “paid in rewards worldwide”
3. 140+ countries served

Finance Magnates also reported (Sep 2025, FTMO 10-year milestone):

1. $450M+ paid out to traders since launch
2. 300+ employees
3. 2.3M open trading accounts registered in 2024 (+33% YoY)

5) Industry size estimate (treat as “directional”)
A Business Insider piece (Dec 2025) cites a report estimating the prop trading industry around $12B, and includes additional demographic/success-rate claims (not always independently verifiable).
What these stats imply (practically)

1. Across the best-available disclosures/datasets above, single-digit % of starters ever see a payout is a recurring theme (e.g., ~7% in the FPFX Tech/Finance Magnates dataset; payout fraction depends heavily on firm + rules).
2. “Funded” is not the same as “paid”: even after funding, a meaningful share never withdraws (Topstep’s 2025 stat: 33.3% of funded-level individuals received a payout).
3. Public payout totals (trackers or firm marketing) can be incomplete or not comparable (e.g., Prop Firm Match explicitly notes missing major firms like FTMO/The5ers).

In early 2026, the prop firm landscape is dominated by reports of "Compliance Warfare," where firms use manual audits and technical delays to prevent paying out large profits. Below are the summarized reports and timelines for the specific creators and videos you requested.

1. The Scalp Trader: https://www.youtube.com/@thescalptrader
2. Trader Drysdale: https://www.youtube.com/@TraderDrysdale
3. ASFX (Austin Silver): https://www.youtube.com/@AustinSilverFX
4. (Youtube Videos already deleted ?!)

1. The Scalp Trader: The FundedNext "3-Day Reset" Audit
Creator: The Scalp Trader
Key Point: High-frequency payout requests trigger a "perpetual audit" loop.

1. [00:05:20] The Strategy Trap: The creator explains that while FundedNext offers a "payout every 3 days" feature, this is a mathematical trap for the trader.
2. [00:06:45] The 72-Hour Audit: Every time a request is made, the account undergoes a manual compliance check. By requesting payouts so frequently, the firm is "re-auditing" your trade logs every 72 hours.
3. [00:08:10] Statistical Probability of Failure: He argues that if a human auditor looks at your logs enough times, they will eventually find a "0.1 lot consistency error" or a "news violation" to deny the payout. This allows the firm to stall the withdrawal and keep the trader in the market until they hit a drawdown.

2. Trader Drysdale: Apex "Security Audit" Payout Delays
Creator: Trader Drysdale
Key Point: "Instant Payout" marketing is being replaced by 21+ day "Security Reviews."

1. [00:08:15] The Reality of Instant Payouts: Drysdale reports that the "24-hour payout" promises of 2024 have completely disappeared in 2026.
2. [00:10:30] The "Security Audit" Stall: He documents how Apex and similar firms are placing traders in an "Enhanced Security Review" during the payout window. These audits have no fixed end date and often last 21 to 30 days.
3. [00:12:50] The Liquidity "Float": He theorizes that firms are using these audits as a way to hold on to millions of dollars in trader profit as "interest-free float" to cover their own overhead and pay off older payout queues (a Ponzi-style red flag).

3. ASFX Austin: The Top One Futures "HFT Bait-and-Switch"
Creator: Austin Silver (ASFX)
Key Point: Marketing "HFT-passing" to collect fees, then banning HFT-traders at payout.

1. [00:12:40] The Bait: Austin shows marketing materials from firms like Top One Futures that explicitly allow High-Frequency Trading (HFT) bots to pass the challenge phase.
2. [00:14:15] The Switch: Once the trader becomes funded and reaches a payout, the firm retroactively labels their trades as "Toxic Market Flow" or "Latency Abuse."
3. [00:16:50] Denying the "Simulated" Edge: He explains the abuse: the firm collects the $500 challenge fee knowing the HFT bot will pass, but they never intend to pay out because they claim the HFT strategy is "exploiting a simulated environment" and has no real-world value.

Summary of "Manual Auditing" Traps (2026)
CreatorTimeline ReferenceThe Specific "New" Trap

The Scalp Trader [00:05:20] Audit Stacking: Frequent payout requests = constant manual scrutiny.
Trader Drysdale [00:08:15] Audit Ghosting: Using "Security Reviews" to delay payouts for 3+ weeks.
ASFX Austin[ 00:12:40] Toxic Flow Ban: Allowing HFT to pass challenges but banning it for payouts.

The "Style Auditor" Conclusion: All three creators warn that in 2026, you can follow every math rule and still get denied if a human auditor decides your "behavior" (even if profitable) doesn't fit the firm's specific B-book risk profile. Conforming your "trading style" to look like a slow-moving institutional trader is now the only way to ensure a check.

The Issue: Systemic Failure of Legacy Firms
Summarized Transcript: Iman, known for deep investigative content, reports that Topstep—one of the oldest firms in the industry—is facing a massive crisis of confidence.

1. [00:01:30] The Trustpilot Surge: He highlights a flood of negative reviews where traders claim their "active" accounts were suddenly wiped or profits were removed without explanation.
2. [00:04:45] Blown Accounts for "No Reason": Iman shares logs from traders whose accounts were closed due to "data feed errors" that the firm refused to reimburse.
3. [00:07:20] The Legacy Problem: He argues that even firms with 13 years of history are not safe in 2026, as the B-book model eventually collapses when the ratio of winners to losers tilts too far.

The Issue: Profitability Blacklisting & Withdrawal Friction
Summarized Transcript: Dan discusses a growing "Shadow Ban" list among prop firms that share data to identify and restrict highly profitable traders.

1. [00:02:15] The Shadow Ban: He reports that if you successfully withdraw over a certain amount (e.g., $50,000) from one firm, you may find your accounts at other firms suddenly facing "manual reviews" or lower leverage.
2. [00:05:40] Payout Denials for "Style": Dan reveals that firms are now using "Internal Risk Scoring" to deny payouts. If your score is too high (meaning you win too consistently), they claim your trading style is "predatory to the simulated environment."
3. [00:08:50] The "Regulatory" Excuse: He exposes firms using vague "FCA/CFTC compliance" language as a shield to withhold funds, even when they aren't actually regulated by those bodies.

The Issue: Predatory Hidden Rule Enforcement
Summarized Transcript: This channel focuses on the "Fine Print" that firms like FundingTicks use to wipe out traders right at the payout finish line.

1. [00:01:45] The "Latency" Excuse: The reviewer documents how the firm flags trades closed during "volatile periods" as latency abuse, stripping the profits.
2. [00:03:10] The Stop Loss Violation: He exposes a rule where if you don't have a hard stop loss set within seconds of opening a trade, you are disqualified—even if the trade is a winner.
3. [00:04:20] Withdrawal Stall: He reports that the "manual audit" phase for payouts has been extended indefinitely, with some traders waiting months for "compliance approval."

On X (Twitter), “prop firm scandals” are mostly user allegations (often with partial screenshots, sometimes competitors/affiliates stirring drama). The patterns repeat across firms, though: payout friction + rule interpretation at payout time.

The recurring “scandal” buckets you’ll see on X

1. Payout denied / reduced (often framed as “I followed the rules”) — usually tied to max risk, consistency, trade idea aggregation, news trading, or copy/partner rules.
2. “Rule didn’t exist when I started” / retroactive interpretation — a big trust killer in user reports.
3. KYC / identity / VPN / IP issues at the exact moment of withdrawal (some claim they’re “blocked” after passing).
4. Execution / platform issues (slippage, missed fills, “ghost orders,” outages) that allegedly cause breaches or change PnL enough to affect eligibility.
5. Delayed payouts / batched payouts / audits (firm-side explanations: compliance, platform migrations, internal audits).

Examples of X posts (user claims / public chatter)
Below are direct examples of the kinds of posts traders share. I’m paraphrasing the gist (not validating the claims):

1. Denied payout over small “extra risk”: post claims a firm rejected a ~$4,600 payout for exceeding risk by ~0.6%.
2. Platform/“ghost order” accusations (futures prop context): post alleges order glitches that fail traders, plus broader complaints about denials/rule changes.
3. “New rule at payout time” framing: post warns about suddenly “violating” a rule that allegedly wasn’t there initially.
4. KYC/VPN-based denial allegation: post claims an ~$8,000 payout denial due to alleged VPN usage during KYC.
5. Slippage + payout rejection: post claims heavy slippage and a rejected payout after multiple payouts / restrictions.
6. “Offered free account for silence” allegation: post claims a firm offered a free account instead of paying out (in exchange for silence).
7. General complaint trend post: “more and more complaints” about payout issues, slippage, platform problems.
8. Tiny dollar breach → big consequence story: post criticizes rejecting a ~$6,900 payout / breaching over a small overage (commissions-related).
9. Video verification / identity checks: post references denied payouts tied to “video verification required” claims.
10. “Payout denied” amplification posts (often linking to a longer video/thread).
11. Firm-side messaging about “payout delays / hidden rules”: official account posts about reducing payout delays and removing “hidden rules.”
12. Aggregator warning posts (e.g., “denied 3 payouts”) — common format, but treat with extra skepticism unless evidence is shown.

How to pull lots of these posts fast (good X search strings)
Try searching X (or Google) with combinations like:

1. "payout denied" "prop firm"
2. "KYC" payout denied prop firm
3. "VPN" "payout" "prop firm"
4. "slippage" "prop firm" payout
5. "ghost orders" prop firm
   And add firm names: Apex, FTMO, TFT / "The Funded Trader", etc. Using Google works well too: site:x.com "payout denied" "Apex".

Quick due-diligence filter (so you don’t get wrecked by “gotchas”)

1. Read payout rules like a lawyer: what counts as a “trade idea,” scaling rules, max loss day, consistency, prohibited strategies.
2. Ask: what’s appealable? Is there a dispute process or only support tickets?
3. Execution reality check: if the firm’s model can create slippage/latency edge vs. you, assume it will show up at the worst moment.
4. Prefer firms that publish clear rule-change logs and have stable platform history.

FREE Book on Top 50 Trading Quotes, just created from me.

I created another trading book recently. It is free to download as pdf here. Enjoy. Do you like it ?

# The Cognitive Bias Playbook for Traders
### A Comprehensive Guide to the 60 Scientific Biases That Determine Success and Failure in the Markets

**Complete Edition — 226 Pages · 80,000 Words · 60 Biases · 15 Charts & Diagrams**

There’s no way Donnie will ever accept this. Seriously, if it doesn't dip even harder now, then literally everyone has already sold.

According to reports from the state-run Iranian news agency IRNA on April 6, 2026, Iran has submitted its official response to the latest US proposal via Pakistan. Far from being a mere acceptance, this response constitutes a 10-point counter-demand that Tehran considers a prerequisite for ending the war.
Iran rejects the original US plan (often referred to as the 15-point plan) as "maximalist" and "detached from reality." Instead, the Iranians are calling for a comprehensive restructuring of regional security.

The 10 Clauses of the Iranian Response (Counter-Demands)
According to IRNA and regional sources, these are the central points defining the Iranian position:

1. Immediate cessation of all attacks: An end to all "aggressions and assassinations" by the US and Israel (specifically following the killing of top leaders at the start of the war).
2. Legally binding guarantees: Formal assurances under international law that the war will not be resumed at a later date.
3. War reparations: Full financial compensation for damages to infrastructure, the economy, and military facilities.
4. An end to the war on all fronts: A comprehensive ceasefire that includes all of Iran's regional allies (the so-called "Resistance," such as Hezbollah and the Houthis).
5. Recognition of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz: Iran views control over this waterway as a "natural and non-negotiable right."
6. Withdrawal of US troops: The closure of all US military bases in the West Asia region.
7. Full lifting of sanctions: An unconditional end to all economic punitive measures, not just those that are nuclear-related.
8. Release of frozen assets: Immediate access to all Iranian funds blocked worldwide.
9. Recognition of the new leadership: Formal diplomatic recognition of the succession of Ayatollah Khamenei (under Mojtaba Khamenei) and the legitimacy of the government.

"Sharing my experience with The5ers.

Payout requested: March 21, 2026 (~$13K)

Interview completed & account approved: March 24

March 28: Support confirmed everything was approved, no issues, and payout would be sent within 24–48 hours

After that, I followed up multiple times and was always told:
Payout is approved
No issues on the account
Funds are being processed
As recently as yesterday, support said my payout was already with the finance team.

However, after more than two weeks of waiting, I suddenly received a termination notice citing “integrity concerns” — with no prior warning, no clear evidence, and no chance to clarify.

So the question is simple:
If there was an issue, why was the payout approved and confirmed multiple times?
This kind of process is very difficult to understand and raises serious concerns about transparency and consistency.
Traders should be cautious and make sure to document everything.
Be careful guys"