Crypto proprietary trading firm HyroTrader has publicly confirmed that it discontinued support for the CLEO trading platform, raising fresh questions about an October 12 migration policy that promised existing customers could continue using their legacy challenges.
The confirmation appeared in a company response on Trustpilot, published around October 27–28, after a reviewer criticized the firm’s platform changes. HyroTrader defended its recent technology upgrades while acknowledging that CLEO support had ended.
The statement adds direct company confirmation to a dispute previously centered on customer allegations. However, HyroTrader has not clarified when CLEO support ended, whether existing challenges were automatically terminated or how customers who purchased accounts before the migration were accommodated.
Separately, a Germany-based reviewer updated an October 25 complaint on October 28 to report finally receiving a funded account. That provides evidence of at least one reported resolution, although the review does not establish that the dispute involved CLEO or that other affected customers received equivalent treatment.
HyroTrader’s New Statement Raises Questions About Its October 12 Promise
In its Trustpilot response, HyroTrader rejected a reviewer’s criticism that the company had repeatedly changed trading platforms. It stated: “We recently added Blofin and Hyro terminal while discontinuing support for the CLEO platform.”
The company also rejected accusations of dishonest conduct, questioned the reviewer’s claims and invited customers experiencing genuine problems to contact support.
Although the response was not specifically addressed to the previously reported CLEO closure complaint, its acknowledgment of discontinued support is significant because HyroTrader’s earlier communications presented a different arrangement for existing customers.
On October 12, HyroTrader announced a major relaunch introducing its proprietary Hyro trading terminal, BloFin integration, revised evaluation programs and static drawdown limits.
The announcement explicitly stated that customers who purchased CLEO challenges before the migration could continue trading through legacy.hyrotrader.com. Alternatively, they could contact customer support to replace their existing challenge with one on the new platform and receive an additional bonus challenge account.
HyroTrader’s publicly accessible FAQ continues to describe that arrangement. It distinguishes CLEO’s removal from new challenge purchases from the continued availability of challenges purchased before migration.
The difference is important. Ending technical support for a platform does not necessarily mean disabling every existing account. A legacy system could remain operational without receiving updates, although its reliability and available assistance might change.
HyroTrader has not explained whether that distinction applies here. Consequently, the new statement confirms discontinued CLEO support but does not independently establish that all legacy trading access was terminated.
Customer Complaints and a Newly Reported Resolution
The issue first attracted attention after a Poland-based trader alleged that HyroTrader had terminated an existing CLEO challenge without providing a replacement.
As detailed in Dave Finances’ October 25 investigation into the CLEO challenge closure, reviewer Alan Patryk Wojciech claimed he received an October 21 email stating that CLEO would no longer be supported and that his challenge would be terminated between October 21 and 23.
He subsequently alleged that the account was deactivated without the promised replacement, despite the company’s earlier guidance allowing customers to continue their legacy challenges or request migration.
The alleged termination notice and underlying account records have not been independently authenticated. There is also insufficient evidence to establish whether the complaint reflects an individual account problem or a broader change affecting other CLEO customers.
A separate Trustpilot development introduces a more positive outcome, although it should not be confused with the Polish trader’s allegation.
A Germany-based reviewer identified as “mh eh” originally posted a complaint on October 25. On October 28, the reviewer amended it to withdraw the earlier criticism and report that HyroTrader had finally granted the funded account. The updated review displayed a five-star rating.
That statement indicates the reviewer considered the account issue resolved. However, the publicly visible update does not explain why the funded account was delayed, what changed internally or whether the problem arose from the CLEO migration.
Nor does one reported resolution establish that every customer received a replacement or preserved accumulated evaluation progress.
The distinction matters because a challenge replacement, a funded-account activation and the restoration of an interrupted evaluation represent different outcomes with potentially different financial consequences.
Platform Changes and Customer Rights Are Separate Issues
HyroTrader’s published terms and conditions, last updated September 29, provide additional context.
Section 12.6 allows the company, acting reasonably, to determine which trading platforms and simulation engines are available to customers and to change that selection. It also states that customers do not have an entitlement to continued access to a particular platform or automatic compensation solely because the platform changes.
Consequently, discontinuing CLEO would not automatically establish a contractual violation.
However, the termination of a trading challenge raises a different question. Section 20.3 addresses company-initiated termination for reasons other than specified violations, providing for 30 calendar days’ notice and the return of qualifying challenge deposits, including those associated with activated evaluations still running when termination occurs.
The applicable contractual provisions would depend on the original purchase agreement, the reason for any account closure and whether HyroTrader classified its action as a platform change, challenge cancellation or account termination.
The company’s existing migration promise adds another important consideration: whether affected customers received an equivalent opportunity to complete the evaluation they originally purchased.
For example, a trader who had nearly completed a CLEO challenge could face materially different circumstances if moved to a new evaluation with altered rules, a reset balance or a fresh profit target.
HyroTrader’s October relaunch changed several evaluation parameters, including drawdown calculations and the available challenge structures. It has not publicly explained whether legacy evaluation progress was preserved when accounts were replaced.
This distinction reflects the wider nature of simulated proprietary trading programs and their differences from conventional brokerage accounts. Customers generally purchase access to performance evaluations, rather than depositing the advertised account balance as their own trading capital.
Why the CLEO Transition Matters for the Prop Trading Industry
HyroTrader’s situation illustrates a commercial risk facing proprietary trading providers as they replace third-party infrastructure with proprietary systems.
Building an internal trading terminal can improve control over development, operating costs and product features. Integrating additional exchanges can also provide customers with more choices.
But those benefits become harder to demonstrate when existing traders are uncertain about the continuity of accounts they have already purchased.
The problem is not exclusive to HyroTrader. Dave Finances recently examined TakeProfitTrader account restrictions linked to disputed payments, illustrating another situation in which customers questioned whether internal operational decisions were preventing them from accessing paid evaluations.
Such disputes highlight an asymmetry in the retail prop trading business. Firms control the systems recording evaluation progress, enforcing rules and authorizing account transitions. Customers generally depend on company records to verify why access changed or whether contractual conditions were satisfied.
Regulators have also highlighted broader risks surrounding retail proprietary trading. Belgium’s Financial Services and Markets Authority, in a 2024 warning about funded trading programs, drew attention to the costs of paid challenges and the risks associated with simulated trading arrangements.
That warning was industry-wide and was not a finding of misconduct by HyroTrader. Nevertheless, it reinforces why clear disclosures about fees, account conditions and customer rights matter.
For HyroTrader, several factual questions remain unanswered. The company has not established publicly when CLEO support was discontinued, whether legacy accounts continued functioning afterward or whether replacement challenges were automatically issued to affected customers.
It also remains unclear whether replacements preserved existing trading progress, maintained comparable evaluation conditions or included the additional bonus accounts described in the October 12 announcement.
The newly updated German review demonstrates that at least one customer reports receiving a previously disputed funded account. That is a relevant development, but it cannot substitute for a broader explanation of how the migration was implemented.
The most useful next disclosure would reconcile HyroTrader’s continuing legacy-account guidance with its acknowledgment that CLEO support has ended, alongside a clear description of remedies available to affected traders.
Until then, the evidence supports a narrower conclusion than widespread forced account closures: HyroTrader has confirmed discontinuing CLEO support, while its public migration guidance still promises continuity for existing customers. Whether the company fulfilled that arrangement consistently remains unresolved.
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