A FundingPips trader says the proprietary trading firm terminated a profitable Master Account roughly one day before its scheduled payout date after detecting that devices associated with the account had also been linked to other registered users.
The complaint, published September 26, adds to a cluster of recent user reports involving FundingPips’ Device ID, or CID, controls. Several traders have independently alleged that accounts were terminated after technical identifiers were associated with other users, sometimes shortly before they became eligible to request rewards.
The latest trader says they purchased a new FundingPips account on September 4, passed both evaluation phases and received a Master Account. They selected a biweekly reward cycle with an 80% profit split and said their dashboard showed September 25 as the next payout date.
After roughly two weeks of trading, the account balance had reached $11,319.23, which the trader described as approximately a 13.2% return. FundingPips allegedly terminated the account on September 24.
The trader said the reason given was that devices associated with the account had also been associated with accounts registered to other FundingPips users.
They deny knowingly sharing account credentials, allowing someone else to trade the account or operating another person’s FundingPips account.
The Trader Points to Shared Wi-Fi, Travel and Multiple Devices
The trader offered several possible explanations for why FundingPips’ systems could have identified a connection.
They said an aunt also uses FundingPips and that the two have sometimes used the same Wi-Fi network. The trader also reported travelling between countries and changing devices during the period in question.
According to the complaint, they offered FundingPips device information, travel documentation, a trading journal and further identity verification. They also recorded a roughly four-minute video explaining the circumstances and said they were willing to complete additional video verification if required.
The trader says FundingPips maintained its original decision rather than providing the detailed technical information they wanted. The allegations and supporting screenshots have not been independently verified, and FundingPips has not publicly responded to this specific September 26 complaint.
The timing is particularly sensitive because FundingPips’ current 2 Step Standard rules do offer an 80% biweekly reward option, with a reward request becoming available every 14 calendar days after the first executed trade on the Master Account.
The dispute also comes as FundingPips has faced other questions from successful traders over how rewards are handled. Dave Finances recently reported on FundingPips traders who said they were moved into the firm’s Prime program rather than receiving expected cash rewards, despite earlier messaging that Prime participation was optional.
FundingPips Prohibits Third-Party Trading and Tracks Account Access
FundingPips has a legitimate reason to investigate links between accounts. Prop firms need controls against account sharing, third-party account management and coordinated trading because their business model depends on knowing that the person who passed an evaluation is also the person operating the resulting account.
Under FundingPips’ Trading Conduct and Security Standards, copy trading between different users is prohibited, third-party account management can result in immediate termination and IP activity is logged to help verify that an account holder is personally trading.
The same policy adds an important qualification. FundingPips says switching between Wi-Fi and mobile data within the same region is unlikely to trigger an IP concern. For suspicious geographical changes, the firm says its Responsible Trading Team may request evidence such as travel documentation, a VPS invoice or live video verification before closing an account.
That does not establish how FundingPips handles a Device ID or CID match. The company does not publicly disclose enough information about its fingerprinting methodology to determine which hardware, operating-system, platform or network attributes contribute to a match.
It also means that sharing a Wi-Fi connection should not automatically be treated as proof of a shared device. A common network can produce overlapping IP evidence, while a device fingerprint is intended to identify something more specific. Whether FundingPips’ CID system combines those signals is not publicly clear.
Other Traders Have Reported Similar CID Terminations
The September 26 complaint does not stand alone.
Another FundingPips trader reported that a $50,000 2 Step Standard Master Account was terminated on September 20 after a Device ID/CID match with other registered users. That trader said they had used a second-hand iPhone X and a second-hand iPad and had occasionally connected through public Wi-Fi.
Importantly, that complainant said FundingPips supplied a CID Investigation Report dated September 18 identifying two device identifiers connected with the trader’s login history and showing other registered accounts associated with them.
The existence of such a report supports the conclusion that FundingPips is using a technical account-linking system. It does not independently establish whether the detected associations represented account sharing or whether another technical explanation was possible.
Other complaints posted in August described broadly similar situations. One trader alleged that an account was terminated approximately two days before a payout over a Device ID match. Another said a termination followed use of separate VPS environments alongside the same personal iPhone for MetaTrader access.
The reports remain individual customer allegations, and their similarities do not prove that FundingPips’ detection system is producing false positives. They do, however, create a clearer question than any one complaint could: what evidence turns a shared technical identifier into a finding that another person actually controlled an account?
That distinction echoes disputes elsewhere in online trading. An Ultima Markets trader recently challenged a $4,699 profit deduction after alleging that the broker did not identify the specific trade or contractual provision behind it. In both cases, the core issue is not whether a trading company can enforce its rules, but how clearly it can connect the evidence it holds to the conduct it says occurred.
A Device Match Is Evidence, but Attribution Is the Harder Question
This is where the FundingPips complaints become more interesting than a routine payout dispute.
Device fingerprinting is useful precisely because passwords, IP addresses and login credentials are imperfect identity signals. If several supposedly unrelated accounts repeatedly appear on the same identifiable device, that can be powerful evidence of account sharing or third-party management.
But the strength of that evidence depends on what the identifier actually represents.
A genuinely unique and persistent hardware fingerprint repeatedly accessing multiple users’ accounts would tell a very different story from an identifier that could survive restored backups, be duplicated in virtual environments or remain associated with second-hand hardware.
Likewise, two relatives using the same Wi-Fi should create a shared network signal, but that alone would not show that they used the same physical device or traded one another’s accounts.
The problem is that neither customers nor outside observers can test those possibilities without more granular information. FundingPips does not need to publish its fraud-detection system or expose controls that could help rule-breakers evade detection. But there is a large middle ground between revealing an entire security methodology and simply telling a trader that a CID matched.
Session dates, device type, operating system, approximate location and whether the same identifier simultaneously accessed different users’ accounts could materially change the interpretation without necessarily disclosing how the fingerprint itself is generated.
Payout Timing Makes Transparency More Important
The proximity of several alleged terminations to reward dates is likely to keep attracting attention, but the timing must be handled carefully.
A termination one day before a payout does not establish that avoiding the payment was the motive. It is also plausible that prop firms intensify reviews when traders become eligible to withdraw because that is when simulated profits turn into a real financial obligation for the company.
That creates a natural concentration of compliance reviews around payout dates.
At the same time, it also creates an obvious conflict for traders. They may spend weeks completing an evaluation and producing profitable simulated results only to discover at the point of withdrawal that a security system has linked their account to someone else.
Similar tensions appear across trading platforms whenever access to earned or deposited money becomes conditional on an internal review. Dave Finances recently covered an Axi customer who said a withdrawal was blocked because of a separate account, while XT.com users have reported prolonged account restrictions during identity and source-of-funds reviews.
The common problem is information asymmetry. The platform sees the internal risk signals. The customer sees only the consequence.
The Missing Evidence Is What Happens Between the CID Match and Termination
The next step in assessing the FundingPips pattern is not collecting more screenshots showing that accounts were terminated. It is obtaining enough technical detail across several cases to understand what the same CID actually means.
If traders using unrelated second-hand devices, different VPS providers or shared household networks are receiving identical matches to strangers, that would support investigating a possible false-positive mechanism.
If the underlying records instead show the same persistent device accessing accounts belonging to multiple supposedly unrelated people, the evidence would point in the opposite direction.
That is why the September 20 CID Investigation Report may ultimately be more important than the latest complaint itself. It provides a starting point for comparing identifiers, login sessions and affected accounts across users rather than relying only on competing narratives.
FundingPips’ challenge is that fraud controls work best when they are difficult to reverse-engineer, while dispute resolution works best when the evidence is transparent. Those goals naturally conflict.
For traders, the current reports are not enough to conclude that FundingPips is wrongly terminating accounts, nor are the firm’s CID findings independently sufficient to prove account sharing from the outside.
The unanswered question is narrower and more testable: when FundingPips says two customers share a Device ID or CID, what technical event actually produced that connection?
Until that gap is filled, the growing number of similar complaints will continue to leave two very different explanations on the table — a security system successfully detecting prohibited account links, or a detection system sometimes treating ordinary device and network reuse as evidence of misconduct.
Johan Shamshad is a financial markets writer at Dave Finances covering cryptocurrencies, trading platforms, brokers, fintech, financial regulation, and developments across global markets. He previously worked at Gulf News, adding newsroom experience to his coverage of fast-moving financial and digital-asset markets.
His work focuses on identifying market-moving events, company developments, regulatory changes, product launches, and shifts in trading and financial infrastructure.
Johan contributes news and analysis designed to help readers understand not only what happened, but why a development matters and how it may affect the wider financial landscape.