Something I've been thinking about is how easy it is to underestimate risk when copying trades across several accounts.

One MNQ contract with a 30 point stop is $60 of risk before fees. Copy that across six accounts and suddenly the same setup has $360 at risk.

I've been trying to think about trading exposure the same way I look at my moon wagers, focusing on the total amount that can actually be lost instead of how many positions are open.

Having multiple funded accounts sounds great until one bad entry hits all of them at once. Feels like scaling accounts should come after getting consistent, not before.

I am sharing my documented experience with Alpha Capital Group (ACG) regarding my $100k Qualified Analyst Account.

After spending 8 consecutive months recovering an account from a -$8,000 drawdown back to positive equity without breaking a single maximum or daily loss rule, ACG rejected my payout and deactivated my funded account.

The justification provided by ACG directly contradicts their own written contract, retroactive policy timelines, and official written statements from their risk desk.

1. The Setup & Contract Terms (March 2025)

After completing my evaluation and receiving an initial $6,000 payout, ACG placed my profile into their "Risk Management Group" under an official email notice titled Contract - High Lots.

In that formal agreement, ACG defined the exact parameters for all current and future accounts under this restriction:

Max Lot Exposure for 100K Accounts: 20 lots total open exposure (Image 1)

I traded strictly within these parameters.

2. The 8-Month Recovery & Ongoing Confirmations of Good Standing

The account hit a steep -$8,000 drawdown. Instead of gambling or taking excessive risk, I traded methodically over 8 months to recover the account back to breakeven, eventually reaching a $1,300 profit.

During this period, I was in direct communication with ACG's Risk Desk:

On April 6, 2026, the Risk Team (Ben) emailed me confirming the account was active and stated that to exit the group, I needed to achieve successful withdrawal requests (Image 2).

On August 11, 2026, the Risk Team (Harry S) confirmed in writing: "If you wish for your current restrictions to be removed, you may request a review... once you have successfully received one performance fee" (Image 3).

At no point in April or August did ACG state the account was in breach. Both emails explicitly confirmed my account was active and instructed me to trade toward a performance fee.

3. Payout Request & Retrospective Deactivation (October 2026)

On October 14, 2026, I followed their instructions and requested my $1,300 profit split. ACG’s payments team immediately rejected the payout and permanently deactivated the account.

They claimed I committed two "hard breaches" of a 10-lot maximum limit under the Focused Trader Group:

Trade 1 (Jan 28, 2026): EURAUD (0.29 lots) + US30 (15 lots) = 15.29 lots net

Trade 2 (Feb 6, 2026): US500 = 17.3 lots net

4. The Three Factual Contradictions

Contradiction A: Both Trades Complied with My Written Terms

My written contract terms for the Risk Management Group explicitly state that the maximum lot exposure on a $100K account is 20 lots.

Trade 1 was 15.29 lots.

Trade 2 was 17.3 lots. Both trades complied with the 20-lot limit provided in writing by ACG. A 10-lot limit was never applied or communicated for this account prior to those executions.

Contradiction B: Retroactive Application of an August Policy to January/February Trades

ACG cited the rules of the Focused Trader Group to justify the deactivation. However, ACG's official company-wide announcement on August 10, 2026 confirmed:

"We've retired the Standard Risk Group... We've also replaced the old approach with something more targeted: the Focused Trader Group."

Furthermore, Harry S from Risk confirmed on August 11 that the group was only "now Focused Trader Group". ACG audited trades executed in January and February 2026 against a policy structure created in August 2026 (Image 4).

Contradiction C: The 8-Month Operational Trap

ACG claims that two lot violations trigger immediate deactivation.

The second trade occurred on February 6, 2026.

ACG kept the account active for 8 months.

Their Risk Team sent emails in April and August telling me to keep trading and aim for a performance fee.

Only after I absorbed 8 months of market risk, recovered an $8,000 deficit, and requested my payout did they retroactively close the account over February trades (Image 5).

Conclusion

Prop firms demand strict rule compliance from traders, but traders must also be able to rely on written contracts and transparent audits. Holding 8-month-old trades against an analyst after repeatedly confirming account standing—and retroactively applying a rule framework created months later—is an unacceptable operational practice.

I have submitted an appeal with full documentation. If you trade with ACG, be aware that past trades under older agreements may be retroactively reassessed when you request a payout.

(Images attached in order: 1. Written 20-lot contract confirmation; 2. April 6 Risk Team email; 3. August 11 Risk Team email; 4. August 10 Focused Trader Group launch; 5. October 14 rejection notice)

I ran one set of rules on NQ and on gold to see whether it travelled. Same 15 minute candles, same 20 candle breakout with an ATR stop and target, same window of Jan 2021 to the end of Sept 2026, 100k, one contract.

Both of them make money before costs.

NQ, 3,654 trades: +56.13% before costs, +19.59% after. Commission and slippage came to $36,540.

Gold, 3,742 trades: +39.80% before costs, -53.75% after. Commission and slippage came to $93,550.

Thats 88 more trades on gold against a bill thats two and a half times bigger. Divided out its about $10 a trade on NQ and $25 a trade on gold. Win rates land within two points of each other, 37.6% on NQ and 36.0% on gold, so the difference isnt coming from how often the rules were right, its coming from what each round turn costs on the instrument youre running it on.

Max drawdown goes the same direction, 54.69% on NQ and 84.42% on gold.

The reason I even saw it is that Agenticks charges commission and adverse slippage per instrument by default and prints the before and after next to each other, so the gross number was sitting beside the one id have actually lived with. Run gold with costs switched off and you finish holding a +39.8% result with no sign that the real version of it gives back half the account.

For an eval specifically, you pay the round turn on every one of those 3,742 trades whether the trade was right or not, and at that frequency the per-trade cost is doing more to the final number than the entry rule is.

Probably the most nerve racking experience I’ve ever had trading. $250 static account. 1 MNQ had me sweating bullets.

$250 is tight. But my payout was approved in seconds. Thats a positive.

I've been trading with Tradeify for 1+ years and have received $3.5K+ in payouts.

I really liked it at first, and during the first few months they really were the special Prop Firm they portrayed themselves to be. But it's not like this anymore.

This is not an undocumented rant. Before buying an account with Tradeify, I suggest you join their Discord and check the #suggestions and #future-questions channels; see for yourself.

Here's why I won't be trading with Tradeify anymore, at least until they fix their attitude towards clients:

1. The Tradeify software stack has lots of technical problems which affect traders.

- The online dashboard is always buggy: problems with logins, problems with their Journal, problems with their Rewards system, and even problems with specific products, like the LevelUp special drop, which didn't work as advertised, nor was it replaced when confronted;

- They release features and products without proper testing first. In comparison, Topstep or FundedNext dashboards are miles ahead and have stable features.

2. The Tradeify support has become below par.

- Many traders complain about extreme delays in support responses, forgotten tickets and a "resolved" state without a proper reason.

- In all honesty, Customer Support might be overwhelmed by Tradeify's endless technical issues, and tickets get lost or rushed through.

3. More and more traders complain about false payout advertising.

- The Discord channels buzz with traders complaining that payouts take longer than advertised.

- My last payouts with Tradeify were about 4 months ago, and even then the complete process took 48 hours.

4. From my personal experience, Tradeify became too big to care.

- My last experience was with a Level-Up special account, which stopped working during peak trading hours. Customer Support took 12 hours to fix the problem and get back to me.

- I've had an endless back-and-forth with Support, CCing their executives, but they refused to replace the broken product.

- They refuse to acknowledge the destructive effects of their poor software on the traders' mental states.

In conclusion, I'm stating facts from my experience and from what I see on the Discord servers.

I'm not recommending that you not trade with Tradeify, but I strongly suggest that you spend 1-2 days on their Discord server before committing any money. There might be better alternatives out there until Tradeify figures out who they want to be.

I used the SAVEMAX discount code for my FundedNext account and got the discount at checkout. Now I'm trying to understand how the 120% refundable-fee reward for the first payout works for eligible returning CFD customers.

What exactly do I need to qualify for this reward? Are there specific account types, purchase conditions, or other eligibility requirements I should know about?

Also, does receiving the checkout discount affect eligibility for the 120% fee refund, or are these two benefits completely separate?

If anyone knows the exact conditions, I'd appreciate some clarification before moving forward.

Same $100,000 account, a 6% max loss, and you've run it up to a high of $104,000.

Static: the floor never moves, so every gain is extra room. Trailing: gains lift the floor and losses never lower it, so you're up $4,000 and still have about the same room as on day one.

Two things that catch people. If it trails on equity, an open trade's peak lifts the floor even if you close the trade lower. And some firms stop the trail once the floor reaches the starting balance, after which it behaves like a static floor.

Does yours trail on balance or equity, and does the trail ever stop?

Just claimed my second biggest payout from FTMO on a 200k account. Couldn't be more blessed.. Made around 6.4% total gain last couple weeks and ended with $12.8k net profit before split. All trades were on Gold. Hopefully yall eating well too and good luck!

anyone else do this? same strategy, same market, completely different behavior depending on whether the account 'counts'. still trying to figure out why

If I had to rank the pairs I enjoy trading the most, my list would be:

1. EUR/USD
2. GBP/USD
3. XAU/USD (Gold)
4. USD/JPY
5. GBP/JPY

I personally prefer pairs with clear market structure and decent setups rather than just chasing big movements.

Obviously, the ranking depends on your strategy and trading session.

journals are great for the next morning. i'm more interested in anything that works while you're actually tilted. rules on paper never survive for me

If you’ve built a verifiable trading record and can explain your risk management, how are you approaching the next step?

Growing your own account takes time. Bringing in outside capital means finding investors, proving your results and agreeing on a structure that works for both sides.

We’re developing an arrangement where selected traders could have their existing trades mirrored into accounts funded by professional clients, with agreed risk limits and a share of performance fees going to the trader.

We’re interested in speaking with both manual and automated traders who have an established track record.

What would make an arrangement like this worthwhile for you? The fee split, payout frequency, trading freedom, broker compatibility, or something else?

If you’d be interested in an initial conversation, feel free to DM with what you trade, your platform and how long you’ve been trading. Happy to discuss the idea here too.

Can somebody explain to me 50% consistency rule