Proprietary trading firms distributed $130.37 million through 97,894 blockchain-verified payouts in October 2026, according to a November 1 report from Payout Junction, marking a 10.1% increase in tracked payment value from September.
The independent payout tracker recorded $130,370,958 in October, compared with $118,377,313 a month earlier. The total was also 82.9% higher than the $71.3 million recorded in October 2025, although the number of firms and payment channels covered by the dataset can change over time.
Tradeify Futures dominated the monthly rankings, accounting for $50.27 million, or approximately 38.6% of the observed payout value. FundedNext and MyFundedFutures followed, with the three firms collectively representing roughly two-thirds of October’s verified payments.
The report covers 43 firms with observed payout activity. Its figures come from transactions attributed to proprietary trading firms and verified against public blockchain records rather than from the firms’ own promotional payout announcements.
October payout counts rise faster than payment value
October’s 97,894 verified transactions represented an increase of 16,370 from September’s 81,524, equivalent to approximately 20.1% growth in payment frequency.
There were more payments, quite a few more, but the average payment got smaller.
The average payout declined from $1,452 in September to $1,332 in October, a decrease of approximately 8.3%. The median fell more modestly, from $1,058 to $1,042. The decline in average payment size was more noticable than the movement in the median.
These figures suggest that the expansion in tracked payout value was driven primarily by more transactions rather than larger individual transfers. They do not establish how many unique traders received payments, since one participant can receive multiple distributions during a month.
Compared with October 2025, when the tracker recorded 41,249 payments across 36 firms, the number of observed transactions has more than doubled. The growth reflects a substantially larger observable payment flow, although changes in tracking coverage prevent the year-on-year increase from being treated as a precise measure of overall industry expansion.
The number of firms with recorded October payouts was also slightly below September’s 44, indicating that the monthly increase in total value did not come from a larger count of active firms.
Tradeify leads with more than $50 million in payouts
Tradeify Futures recorded $50,273,721 across 31,504 payouts during October, compared with $39,898,912 across 24,158 transactions in September.
Its verified payout value increased 26%, while its share of the monthly total climbed from 33.7% to 38.6%.
Tradeify’s lead was large, and it got quite a bit larger.
The firm’s largest October payout was $252,376, which was also the biggest individual transfer recorded across the monthly dataset.
FundedNext ranked second with $19,202,748 across 15,908 payouts, representing 14.7% of the total. MyFundedFutures followed with $17,284,479 across 13,928 transactions, equivalent to 13.3%.
Combined, the three companies accounted for approximately $86.76 million, or 66.5% of October’s tracked payout value.
Other firms experienced weaker monthly results. Breakout’s verified payouts declined 21.2% to $6.87 million, while BlueGuardian recorded $5.59 million, down 9.3%. FundingPips fell 18.4% to approximately $2.91 million.
The figures demonstrate substantial differences in observed payout activity, but not necessarily comparable differences in profitability, customer growth or payout approval rates. Firms may use different payment methods, operate programs of different sizes and apply different trading evaluation requirements.
Tradeify’s ranking also provides context for an earlier Tradeify payout dispute involving $2,000, in which the company confirmed closing a trader’s account following a compliance finding. That individual dispute remains separate from the firm’s substantial recorded payment activity.
What blockchain verification can establish
Payout Junction says it identifies wallets attributed to proprietary trading firms and checks outgoing transactions against public blockchain records. Its verification process includes examining transaction hashes, token contracts, transfer amounts and settlement timestamps.
The methodology provides an independently inspectable record of cryptocurrency movements associated with tracked firms. It does not depend solely on a company’s statement that a payment was processed.
The chain shows movement, yes, but not every decision behind a payment.
For example, a confirmed transfer can establish that funds moved between addresses. It cannot, by itself, demonstrate that a recipient satisfied every trading condition, identify every beneficial recipient or independently validate the tracker’s classification of every transfer as a trader reward.
The dataset also excludes payments through bank transfers, cards and other channels that the service cannot observe. Blockchain transfers using wallets or networks outside its tracking coverage may be absent as well.
These limitations become particularly relevant when comparing the tracker with companies’ published lifetime payout figures.
An earlier Dave Finances investigation examined a comparision between FundedNext’s $393.4 million payout claim and approximately $333 million in tracked blockchain payments. The apparent difference of roughly $60.5 million did not establish unpaid liabilities or fabricated payouts.
The periods look close enough at first, except they aren’t aligned.
FundedNext’s corporate disclosure covered payments through September 30, while the blockchain snapshot extended to October 26. The two sources also used different payment coverage and reporting definitions.
A proper reconcilliation would require consistent reporting dates, clearly identified payment channels and records covering any distributions outside the blockchain dataset.
October’s industry-wide results therefore provide additional settlement evidence, but they do not establish a definitive contradiction between the tracker and any particular firm’s published payout totals.
Verified payouts do not resolve individual claims
The October figures arrive amid continuing scrutiny of how proprietary trading firms determine eligibility for performance rewards and handle account restrictions.
Some firms use simulated trading environments in which participants must pass evaluations and comply with contractual rules before receiving payments.
Belgium’s Financial Services and Markets Authority highlighted these arrangements in its warning about proprietary trading firms in March 2024. The regulator described the costs associated with trading challenges and the discretion firms may exercise over reward eligibility and simulated trading activity.
Those conditions mean successful payments to some participants cannot determine whether another trader’s pending reward has been correctly approved or denied.
Dave Finances previously reported on a FundingPips account termination complaint shortly before a scheduled payout. The trader disputed a device-identification finding, but the available public evidence did not independently establish whether the company had applied its rules incorrectly.
And a firm can keep paying many traders while a particular claim is still disputed.
For traders evaluating a proprietary trading provider, the blockchain records offer a measurable indication of actual payment activity. They remain less informative about payout rejection rates, customer eligibility disputes, unsuccessful evaluation accounts or the number of unique customers who ultimately recieved rewards.
October’s $130.37 million total establishes a new monthly benchmark within Payout Junction’s tracked dataset. A fuller assessment of individual firms would require combining observable settlement records with complete payment-method disclosures, consistent reporting periods and independently reviewable information on reward eligibility decisions.
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