Crypto proprietary trading firm HyroTrader is facing a customer complaint alleging that it terminated an existing CLEO trading challenge without providing a replacement, despite having publicly assured customers earlier this month that legacy challenges would remain operational.
The allegation appeared in an October 24 Trustpilot review from Poland-based trader Alan Patryk Wojciech. He claims HyroTrader emailed him on October 21 to announce that CLEO would no longer be supported and that his challenge would be terminated between October 21 and 23.
According to Wojciech, the challenge was subsequently deactivated without a replacement account. His account of events directly conflicts with HyroTrader’s October 12 relaunch announcement, which offered existing CLEO users the choice of continuing on the legacy platform or voluntarily migrating to the new trading infrastructure.
The alleged termination has not been independently verified. The October 21 email, account records and any correspondence explaining the closure have not been publicly authenticated. However, HyroTrader’s published migration policy can be verified, creating a specific discrepancy that warrants clarification.
Trader alleges CLEO challenge was closed without replacement
In his one-star Trustpilot review titled “From hero to 0,” Wojciech described initially enjoying the CLEO trading interface before receiving the alleged termination notice on October 21.
He said the email informed him that the platform would no longer be supported and gave a termination window ending October 23. The trader claims his challenge was subsequently disabled, even though he had not voluntarily requested migration to another platform.
Wojciech also disputed the absence of a replacement challenge, arguing that HyroTrader had previously promised alternative accounts and additional bonuses to customers choosing to migrate.
A separate October 24 comment on Reddit similarly alleges that HyroTrader stopped supporting CLEO challenges and failed to provide replacement accounts. The wording closely resembles the Trustpilot complaint, however, and the two statements may have originated from the same individual. They cannot be treated as independent confirmation of widespread closures.
Neither source establishes how many legacy accounts were affected, whether any customers received replacement challenges, or whether the alleged action resulted from a company-wide decision or an account-specific issue.
No case-specific public response from HyroTrader was visible alongside Wojciech’s Trustpilot review at the time of reporting.
HyroTrader’s October 12 policy promised continued CLEO access
The complaint is notable because HyroTrader addressed the future of legacy CLEO accounts in its October 12 relaunch announcement, published just nine days before the alleged termination email.
The company stated that customers who purchased CLEO challenges before the migration could continue trading through legacy.hyrotrader.com. Alternatively, they could contact support to move their challenge to the new platform and receive an additional bonus challenge account.
HyroTrader’s current FAQ repeats that arrangement. It distinguishes between CLEO being unavailable for new purchases and previously purchased CLEO challenges remaining accessible to existing customers.
The distinction matters because the original announcement presented migration as a customer choice rather than a compulsory transition.
The October relaunch introduced HyroTrader’s proprietary trading platform, revised challenge structures, static drawdown rules and additional exchange integrations, including BloFin.
The new infrastructure also offers more than 700 USDT perpetual trading pairs through the company’s own terminal, according to its announcement.
Those changes represented a substantial operational overhaul. Nevertheless, the company’s published instructions specifically addressed customers who preferred to retain their existing CLEO challenges.
If Wojciech’s account was terminated solely because CLEO support ended, that would raise questions about how HyroTrader implemented the migration arrangements it publicly described.
HyroTrader’s terms allow platform changes but address refunds
A review of HyroTrader’s terms and conditions introduces an important qualification to the dispute.
Section 12.6 gives the company discretion to determine which trading platforms and terminals are made available to customers. It also states that customers have no contractual right to continued use of a particular trading platform and that changing the platform does not, by itself, create an entitlement to compensation or a deposit refund.
That provision means discontinuing CLEO would not automatically establish a contractual violation.
However, terminating a trading platform and terminating an entire challenge are different actions.
Section 20.3 addresses termination by the company for reasons other than customer misconduct. It provides for 30 calendar days’ notice and the return of deposits on qualifying challenges, including activated challenges that remain in progress.
Other provisions cover material technical disruptions and company-initiated challenge cancellations. Depending on the circumstances, remedies can include restoring evaluation conditions, extending deadlines, resetting challenges or returning deposits.
The applicable treatment would depend on the nature of the alleged closure, the agreement governing the customer’s original purchase and whether HyroTrader classified the event as migration, platform discontinuation or challenge termination.
Those details remain unknown. The trader has not publicly disclosed his challenge’s purchase price, account size, evaluation progress or the precise contractual basis cited for deactivation.
Why forced migration could become a bigger issue for prop traders
The most important question is not whether HyroTrader is entitled to replace an ageing trading platform. Technology providers change, licensing arrangements end and proprietary firms periodically rebuild their infrastructure.
The real issue is what happens to customers who have already paid for an evaluation and invested time working toward its targets.
Unlike conventional brokerage accounts, retail proprietary trading challenges generally involve simulated trading rather than customer-owned investment portfolios. As explained in our analysis of how prop firms differ from brokers, the economic value of a challenge comes primarily from the contractual opportunity to qualify for performance-based rewards.
That opportunity can be disrupted even when the trader has no withdrawable cash balance.
Consider a customer halfway through a two-stage evaluation. If the platform closes and the company simply provides a new challenge starting from zero, the replacement might preserve the initial account size but eliminate weeks of accumulated progress.
For traders approaching their profit targets, that distinction can be substantial.
A fair migration arrangement would ideally preserve the original evaluation stage, qualifying trading days, accumulated performance and applicable risk limits. If those conditions cannot be preserved, the firm should clearly explain the available alternatives.
This broader problem has appeared in other proprietary trading disputes. A recent Funded Trader Markets challenge complaint raised questions about a trader allegedly losing access to funding after completing both evaluation stages.
Separately, FundingPips account termination allegations highlighted the difficulty customers face when enforcement decisions appear inconsistent with published permissions.
Neither dispute proves wrongdoing by HyroTrader. They illustrate why transparent rules and predictable account treatment are increasingly important in the retail prop trading industry.
What HyroTrader needs to clarify next
For now, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that HyroTrader forcibly terminated every CLEO challenge or systematically denied replacement accounts.
The October 24 complaint does, however, present a testable allegation against a clearly documented company policy.
The most useful clarification would be whether HyroTrader issued a general October 21 notice ending CLEO support, and whether that notice superseded the migration options published nine days earlier.
The company would also need to explain whether existing customers retained their evaluation progress, received equivalent replacement challenges, obtained the advertised bonus accounts or became eligible for refunds.
For Wojciech’s individual case, the original email, account-deactivation history, relevant purchase terms and any support correspondence would help establish whether the closure was caused by platform migration or an unrelated account-specific issue.
There is a commercial risk for HyroTrader even if the company ultimately demonstrates that its actions complied with the applicable contract.
Prop trading customers pay for access to a structured evaluation, but they also depend heavily on the provider’s operational stability. Unexpected changes to that evaluation can damage trust, especially when public migration guidance appears to offer greater continuity than customers say they received.
Until HyroTrader explains the alleged discrepancy, the case remains an unresolved customer complaint rather than an established breach of contract. Its significance lies in a straightforward question: did the company preserve the rights and progress of legacy traders when moving to its new platform?
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