Two proprietary trading firms are facing renewed customer complaints over rejected payouts totaling $8,912.35, with traders challenging the evidence used to justify account breaches. In today’s prop trading roundup, an AquaFunded customer alleges that automated trade matching incorrectly linked two funded accounts to unrelated traders, blocking a pending $3,447.55 payout. Separately, an Alpha Funded customer has renewed a dispute over a $5,464.80 withdrawal rejected for alleged IP-address inconsistency, despite claiming to have disclosed interstate travel and submitted supporting documents. Both disputes remain unresolved in the public record, and the reported amounts represent contested payouts rather than independently verified financial losses.
AquaFunded trader disputes $3,447.55 payout rejection
AquaFunded faces a November 3 complaint from a customer who says the proprietary trading firm blocked two funded accounts and withheld a pending $3,447.55 payout after accusing the trader of copy trading and reverse trading with other accounts.
The reviewer, identified as Mohammed Nasih, provided separate trading statistics for the two accounts. The first reportedly held a balance of $103,830.61 after 39 trades, with a 66.67% win rate. The second showed $100,431 after 10 trades, with a 50% win rate.
According to the customer, AquaFunded’s risk system linked the first account to three unidentified third-party accounts through trade-matching records. The reviewer disputes any connection to those accounts and argues that overlapping trades in XAUUSD were incorrectly classified as coordinated activity.
The two accounts had different trade counts, lot sizes and win rates. Different numbers, yes, but that alone does not prove independent trading.
Copy-trading detection generally depends on the timing, direction, instruments and execution patterns of individual orders. Two accounts can have substantially different overall statistics while sharing a subset of coordinated trades. Conversely, traders following similar strategies can independently enter positions around the same market movements.
Nasih says he submitted trading-history screenshots, system-matching logs and correspondence with AquaFunded’s risk team. The full records have not been independently authenticated, leaving the specific order matches and the firm’s reasoning unverified.
AquaFunded’s published trading policy, dated July 7, 2026, explicitly permits copy trading between accounts owned by the same customer, including between funded and evaluation accounts and between AquaFunded accounts and externally held personal accounts.
That permission is conditional on the accounts belonging to the same trader. It does not authorize copying trades from unrelated customers, coordinating accounts controlled by different individuals or using prohibited arbitrage strategies.
The customer maintains that both AquaFunded accounts were personally owned and that the allegedly matched third-party accounts were unrelated. The complaint does not establish whether the firm’s decision rested solely on similar trading patterns or also involved other account-linkage indicators.
A similiar evidentiary dispute emerged in an earlier FunderBlu copy-trading payout controversy, where customers questioned the basis for account restrictions and requested supporting IP or trading records. The two cases do not establish a shared enforcement system or technical problem.
Another AquaFunded trader acknowledges possible counter-position trading
A separate November 3 reviewer, identified as JT, also alleged that AquaFunded denied a payout because of prohibited counter-position trading.
Unlike Nasih, the second customer acknowledged that the relevant trading activity may have occurred, while maintaining that any violation was unintentional.
The reviewer described trading multiple accounts, generally taking long positions while occasionally using sell positions as part of risk management. The customer said approximately $2,000 had been spent on evaluation accounts before the disputed payout decision.
Counter-position trading and conventional copy trading involve different forms of account coordination. Identical trades can indicate replicated strategies, while opposite positions across accounts may indicate attempts to distribute risk or exploit account-level loss limits.
AquaFunded’s published terms prohibit specified forms of hedge arbitrage and other strategies considered abusive. Whether the second reviewer’s trades violated those restrictions depends on the account combinations, execution records and applicable rules.
This complaint follows earlier AquaFunded payout allegations reported alongside three other prop firms on November 1. That report included a trader’s claim that $3,780 in profits became subject to a reduction after a floating-risk violation.
The November 3 complaints raise seperate enforcement questions and should not be combined into evidence of systematic false-positive detection. One trader denies any coordinated activity; the other concedes that prohibited positions may have existed but disputes the circumstances.
Alpha Funded trader renews $5,464.80 payout dispute
Alpha Funded faces a renewed challenge from a customer whose $5,464.80 payout request was rejected on October 25, 2026, following a compliance review involving IP-address inconsistency and suspected third-party account management.
The reviewer, identified as Valued Trader, updated the original Trustpilot complaint on November 3 after Alpha Funded publicly invited further contact with its compliance team.
The customer says the payout was requested from a Two-Step Classic funded account and rejected the same day, with the account classified as having suffered a hard breach.
According to the complaint, the trader notified support before using the account that they expected to travel between Wisconsin and Georgia. The customer alleges that support accepted the arrangement and requested airline documentation if verification became necessary.
The trader says airline confirmations were subsequently submitted, alongside an offer to complete additional identity checks or a live video verification.
Travel was disclosed, the customer says, yet the subsequent location records became the basis for rejecting the payout.
The disputed technical evidence reportedly included log entries placing the same account in different geographical locations within seconds, including an IP geolocation associated with McLean, Virginia.
The customer argues that the near-simultaneous locations could reflect network routing rather than access by two separate individuals. This explanation has not been confirmed through an independent examination of the login records.
Alpha Funded’s public response says account-security decisions rely on available activity and verification evidence. The company acknowledged the submitted documentation and invited the customer to contact compliance for further clarification.
In the November 3 update, the trader responded that compliance had already rejected the appeal on October 27 and closed the case on October 28 without offering another review.
The firm’s public response does not disclose the specific device identifiers, session data or other authentication evidence behind the decision. It also does not establish whether the submitted travel documents were considered insufficient or whether the company identified independent evidence of unauthorized account management.
Alpha Funded’s published help center addresses IP consistency, travel notifications and device identification. Its August 19 guidance states that unexpected geographical changes can trigger verification requests, including flight receipts and live location checks. However, that document specifically references Alpha Trader Futures, and its application to the reviewer’s CFD Two-Step Classic account has not been independently established.
The firm’s dedicated Two-Step Classic documentation describes evaluation and funded-stage trading requirements, including drawdown, floating-loss and consistency restrictions. The complaint concerns account access rather than a reported breach of those trading-performance limits.
A comparable issue appeared in an earlier FunderPro dispute over IP-sharing evidence, where a trader challenged an account termination and the firm’s interpretation of login records. FunderPro maintained that its decision rested on more than shared IP addresses, but the underlying evidence was not made public.
What the disputed trading and login records can establish
The two November 3 disputes concern different technical evidence: correlations between trading orders at AquaFunded and geographical inconsistencies in login activity at Alpha Funded.
For AquaFunded, the critical evidence would be the complete execution histories of the accounts compared by its risk system, including timestamps, instruments, directions, position sizes and the method used to determine whether the alleged matches exceeded ordinary strategy similarities.
Different win rates do not invalidate a matching finding, and isolated trade overlaps do not establish collusion. The account-ownership relationships and the volume of matching orders are also relevent to evaluating the firm’s conclusion.
For Alpha Funded, the reported presence of two geographical locations within seconds requires a different technical assessment. An IP address can identify a network connection without definitively identifying the individual operating the trading account.
The US National Institute of Standards and Technology, in its digital authentication guidelines, recognizes unexpected geolocation and cloud-service IP addresses as potential fraud indicators that can justify additional authentication controls. NIST also states that such indicators do not replace authentication factors.
That guidance is not a rule governing Alpha Funded’s customer agreements, but it provides a technical basis for distinguishing suspicious network activity from conclusive proof of third-party account access.
Determining whether the Alpha Funded trader’s logins were unauthorized would require examination of IP ownership, session histories, device identifiers and relevant identity-verfication results. The public complaint and company response do not contain enough information for that determination.
Trustpilot currently withholds the ratings of both AquaFunded and Alpha Funded over review-guideline breaches and says it has removed fake reviews from their profiles. Those platform findings do not establish that the individual payout complaints are false, or that the firms’ decisions were improper.
Two disputed payouts, and neither complete evidentiary record is public. The AquaFunded case turns on whether cross-account trade matching reliably identified prohibited coordination; the Alpha Funded case turns on whether the available login and verification evidence justified a finding of third-party account management. Until those records are independently examined, the reported payout rejections remain contested customer allegations rather than established compliance failures.
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