Alpha Capital Group is facing a new customer complaint after a Turkish trader alleged that his $25,000 Alpha Direct account was terminated when unusually wide NAS100 spreads pushed his unrealized loss to approximately $276, exceeding a separate 1% per-asset risk limit.
The trader, Mesut Öziscen, published the allegation on Trustpilot on October 21, 2026, questioning both the trading prices that allegedly triggered the breach and how prominently the restriction had been disclosed before he purchased the account.
Alpha Capital Group’s official documentation confirms that Alpha Direct accounts are subject to a 1% maximum open-loss limit per asset, independent of the advertised 3% daily drawdown and 5% maximum drawdown restrictions. The rule was published before the complaint, so the dispute concerns its visibility during purchase and the accuracy of the reported pricing rather than whether the restriction exists.
The customer’s trading records, timestamped NAS100 quotations and purchase-screen disclosures have not been independently verified. No case-specific public response from Alpha Capital Group resolving these allegations was identified.
Trader Alleges NAS100 Spreads Reached 230 Points Before Account Closure
In his October 21 review, Öziscen said he purchased a $25,000 Alpha Direct account and subsequently discovered that it had been marked as failed after breaching a rule described as the maximum risk per asset loss.
He alleged that spreads on NAS100.raw, an instrument tracking the Nasdaq-100 index, widened rapidly to approximately 210–230 points or more, including periods outside major economic announcements.
According to the trader, the widening caused his floating loss to reach approximately $276, exceeding the $250 threshold applicable to his account.
The alleged loss was $26 above the 1% limit, equivalent to approximately 1.104% of the account’s nominal balance.
However, the review does not identify the exact execution server, trading date, position direction, lot size or timestamp of the reported spread widening. It also does not establish whether the quoted points refer to the platform’s smallest pricing increments or full Nasdaq-100 index points.
Without those details, the reported spread cannot be reliably compared with contemporaneous market conditions or translated into an independently calculated trading loss.
Öziscen also alleged that the application’s Help & Support section displayed a blank screen, preventing him from obtaining assistance through that interface.
He requested a review of his account metrics and either account reactivation or a reset.
Alpha Direct’s Published Rules Confirm a Separate 1% Loss Threshold
Alpha Capital Group’s official Alpha Direct documentation, dated September 21, confirms that the program operates as an instant-qualified account without a separate evaluation stage.
The published account conditions establish a 5% trailing maximum drawdown and a 3% maximum daily drawdown. They also impose a separate 1% maximum open-loss limit on each asset, applicable from the first trade.
For a $25,000 account, these percentages correspond to $1,250 in initial overall drawdown capacity, $750 under a basic 3% daily calculation, and just $250 in maximum permitted open loss on an individual asset. The daily and trailing limits have their own calculation methods, so these figures should not be treated as interchangeable balances.
The per-asset rule is particularly restrictive because it monitors unrealized losses while positions remain open. Multiple losing positions in the same asset are aggregated, and profitable positions do not offset those losses for this calculation.
Alpha Capital’s policy states that reaching the threshold triggers automatic account closure, including the closing of other open positions.
The company also applies a 10-minute cooling-off rule that can combine losses from successive trades in the same direction when a position is reopened shortly after closing.
The Max Risk Rule was announced in July 2026, months before Öziscen’s complaint. His claim that the restriction was hidden therefore cannot establish that the company introduced an unpublished condition.
His narrower allegation is that the purchase interface prominently displayed the 5% overall and 3% daily limits without giving the separate 1% restriction comparable visibility.
The actual checkout screen shown to the trader at purchase has not been independently examined.
Was the NAS100 Spread Spike Consistent With Market Prices?
The most consequential unresolved question concerns the reported NAS100.raw quotations.
Index CFD spreads can widen during periods of reduced liquidity, market transitions, volatility or interruptions in underlying price discovery. Such movements do not automatically indicate manipulation or faulty pricing.
Nevertheless, a sufficiently large spread increase can generate substantial unrealized losses on leveraged positions even without an equally large movement in the underlying index.
For an Alpha Direct account, that distinction is important because the 1% rule can terminate an account based on temporary floating losses rather than realized trading results.
A proper investigation would require the account’s tick-by-tick bid and ask records, position size, server timestamps, margin information and the precise equity calculation that triggered the breach.
Those records could then be compared with contemporaneous prices from independent providers, accounting for differences in instrument specifications and trading sessions.
A related execution dispute recently surfaced when an IC Markets trader reported repeated NEARUSD exit rejections. That separate complaint also highlighted the importance of distinguishing genuine market restrictions from platform-specific execution problems.
Neither allegation independently establishes that the trading provider supplied incorrect prices.
Why Clearly Published Rules May Still Create Disclosure Disputes
The Alpha Capital complaint illustrates a distinction that becomes increasingly important as proprietary trading firms introduce more detailed risk controls.
A contractual restriction can be legitimate, publicly documented and consistently enforced while still leaving questions about whether customers understood its significance when purchasing the product.
A trader seeing a prominent 3% daily loss allowance might reasonably focus on that figure when planning positions. But if a separate 1% floating-loss threshold can permanently close the account first, the practical amount of risk available on any single instrument is considerably smaller.
That does not eliminate the trader’s responsibility to review all applicable conditions. It does suggest that firms benefit from presenting account-ending restrictions together rather than relying entirely on supporting documentation.
A similar issue emerged in GOAT Funded Trader’s loss-limit display dispute, where a customer alleged that a $5,000 account was terminated after a $51.93 floating loss despite a dashboard prominently displaying a $150 daily drawdown allowance.
GOAT’s official rules also contained a separate 1% floating-loss limit. The complaint centered on dashboard visibility rather than the rule’s existence.
The resemblance is notable because both disputes concern the relationship between headline drawdown figures and more restrictive account-ending thresholds.
Spread-Based Breaches Create a Difficult Evidence Problem
The other complication is that traders do not control every component of the price used to calculate their floating losses.
They control position selection and size, but their displayed equity also depends on the trading platform’s bid and ask prices, contract specifications and execution conditions.
If spreads widen sharply, an account may cross a risk threshold without the trader increasing exposure or deliberately taking another loss.
That does not necessarily make the resulting breach invalid. The contract may clearly state that floating equity determines the outcome, regardless of how the loss develops.
But it does make the quality of the underlying pricing data crucial when the customer challenges the result.
The difference between a normal liquidity-driven spread and an abnormal quotation could determine whether the closure reflected an ordinary trading risk or a potentially correctable platform problem.
Alpha Capital has also faced earlier account termination complaints involving MetaQuotes device identifiers, where customers disputed the technical evidence behind enforcement decisions.
Those cases involved different rules and do not substantiate Öziscen’s pricing allegation. They do illustrate why access to reliable underlying records matters when firms make account-ending decisions.
What the Complaint Means for Prop Trading Customers
A $25,000 prop trading account should not automatically be understood as $25,000 of capital deposited by the customer.
As explained in Dave Finances’ analysis of how prop firms differ from conventional brokers, retail funded-trading programs frequently involve simulated capital, with customers purchasing access to a performance-based arrangement governed by company rules.
For traders, losing such an account can mean forfeiting the purchase fee and the opportunity to earn future performance rewards, rather than directly losing the full advertised account balance.
That makes the commercial importance of accurate pricing, transparent restrictions and effective appeals especially clear.
Resolving Öziscen’s complaint should be possible through specific evidence: the historical NAS100.raw quotes, the recorded breach calculation, the checkout disclosures applicable when the account was purchased and any support-system incident records.
If the prices were consistent with the applicable feed and the risk conditions were properly disclosed, the company would have a stronger basis for maintaining the closure. If the records identify an abnormal quotation or a calculation error, an account review or reset could be warranted.
For now, the confirmed facts are that Alpha Capital Group publishes a 1% per-asset risk rule for Alpha Direct accounts and that one customer has publicly challenged its application following an alleged spread spike.
Whether the customer’s $276 floating loss resulted from legitimate market pricing, an unusual platform quotation or another factor remains unresolved. That question, rather than the existence of the published rule itself, is the central issue in the dispute.
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. You can reach out to him via his social media accounts:
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johan-shamshad-742851262/
X: https://x.com/Yasmine_FX
Investing: https://www.investing.com/members/contributors/279781574