FundingPips is facing fresh customer complaints after two traders reported account breaches involving daily-loss calculations that allegedly assigned trading losses to an earlier trading day. Both complaints appeared on Trustpilot on November 6, raising questions about the firm’s platform-time settings, server timestamps and the way its risk system determines when a new daily-loss period begins.
Josh M, a reviewer based in France, said his account was disqualified after a daily-loss calculation apparently attributed the relevant trading activity to November 5, despite his last trade being opened at 00:10 Paris time on November 6.
The trader specifically disputed a timestamp of November 5 at 23:11 Paris time, saying no trade had been opened at that time. He asked FundingPips to examine the exact order timestamps and server-time settings before reconsidering the breach.
A second complaint came from Banothu Praveen, whose Trustpilot review was updated on November 6, although its original posting date is unclear. He said he opened a trade at approximately 4:40 a.m. with a lot size of 0.1, resulting in a loss of just $5. According to his account, the loss was added to the previous day’s daily-loss calculation and triggered an account breach.
Praveen also requested an examination of his trading history, server timestamps and the daily-loss calculation, asking the company to restore the account if an error was identified.
The complaints are similar, but they are not quite the same in the detail. One centres on a disputed calendar date, while the other concerns the attribution of a small trading loss to the wrong daily calculation.
Both reviews are marked as verified on Trustpilot’s FundingPips review page. That designation does not independently establish that the reported breaches were incorrect. Neither complaint includes a complete trading statement, server-side records or the underlying calculations needed to reconstruct the incidents.
FundingPips’ reset time complicates the Paris complaint
FundingPips’ current 2-Step Standard documentation provides an important starting point for examining the allegations.
The firm calculates daily loss using whichever is higher between the account’s opening balance and opening equity. Depending on the purchased configuration, the applicable limit is either 3% or 5% of that reference value. Both floating losses on open positions and losses from closed trades count toward the calculation.
The daily limit resets at midnight platform time, rather than midnight in each customer’s local timezone. FundingPips explicitly publishes different reset times for summer and winter:
- Summer: UTC+3, corresponding to 21:00 UTC.
- Winter: UTC+2, corresponding to 22:00 UTC.
For a trader in France on November 6, winter time means Paris is operating on UTC+1. The applicable winter reset therefore corresponds to 23:00 Paris time.
Josh’s reported 00:10 Paris trade occurred 70 minutes after that reset. It also converts to 23:10 UTC on November 5.
The time conversion is not complicated, but it can look that way in the account history.
This creates an important distinction between the calendar date and the daily trading window. A UTC-based transaction record could show November 5 even though the trade occurred after the winter reset and belonged to the newly started daily-loss period.
The date label may be doing more work than it first appears. A record showing November 5 would not, by itself, establish that FundingPips incorrectly carried a previous day’s trading loss into the calculation. The actual reset timestamp and the period against which the account’s equity was measured would need to be examined.
The public documentation establishes the reset hours but does not explain precisely how the company labels daily-loss periods in customer-facing breach notifications or whether those notifications use UTC, platform time or another date convention.
FundingPips has previously faced a separate timing dispute involving its economic calendar. In October, traders questioned whether restricted news-event windows were displayed consistently, with one French customer alleging that an event’s end time changed after the initial display. Dave Finances examined the earlier FundingPips economic-calendar complaints, although those cases involved news-trading restrictions rather than daily-loss calculations.
Legacy accounts follow a different reset schedule
There is another documentation detail that could affect the investigation: FundingPips maintains separate current and legacy rulebooks.
The company’s Legacy Rules page states that it applies to purchases made before September 28, 2026. New purchases and account resets after that date are directed to the updated model-specific rules.
The distinction is particularly relevant to the daily reset.
The current 2-Step Standard documentation specifies a seasonal adjustment, moving from UTC+3 during summer to UTC+2 during winter. Its legacy counterpart still specifies a fixed UTC+3 reset without the seasonal distinction.
For a trader in Paris during November, these provisions produce different local reset times:
- Current rules: 23:00 Paris time.
- Legacy rules: 22:00 Paris time.
The legacy 2-Step Standard documentation also specifies a 5% daily-loss limit, calculated using the higher opening balance or equity, with both floating and closed losses included.
Under either reset schedule, however, Josh’s reported 00:10 Paris trade occurred after the daily reset. The difference is whether the applicable reset took place one hour or two hours and ten minutes before the reported trade.
The two rulebooks must be assessed seperately. Neither November 6 complaint identifies the account model, original purchase date or whether the account had been reset after September 28. Without those details, it is not possible to establish which precise set of rules applied to either trader.
Praveen’s complaint presents an additional difficulty. His review gives the trade-opening time as approximately 4:40 a.m., but does not establish the timezone in which that time was recorded. Without converting it into FundingPips’ applicable platform time, it is impossible to determine exactly where the trade fell relative to the daily reset.
This is the awkward part of the clock, and the part the firm needs to explain.
Server records are needed to establish whether breaches were correct
A proper investigation would require more than checking the date displayed in a trading history.
For each account, FundingPips would need to reconcile the following information:
- The account model and the applicable version of its trading rules.
- The account purchase date and any subsequent reset date.
- The platform timezone and exact daily reset timestamp.
- The opening balance and opening equity recorded at the beginning of the relevant trading day.
- The applicable daily-loss percentage and resulting breach threshold.
- The exact opening and closing timestamps of the disputed positions.
- Floating P&L, realized losses and commissions included in the calculation.
- The lowest recorded equity and the precise server timestamp when the breach occurred.
The reported $5 loss in Praveen’s complaint, for example, does not independently establish that the account should have remained active. The daily-loss calculation includes all relevant floating and closed-position losses, not just the result of one trade. The loss occured within a particular account-risk calculation that cannot be reconstructed without the opening reference value and other trading activity.
FundingPips has previously demonstrated that it can provide this type of numerical explanation. In a separate Trustpilot dispute involving a 2-Step Standard account, the company published the relevant starting balance, maximum permitted loss, daily threshold, total loss and equity at the moment of breach.
It identified a starting balance of $10,064.57, a 5% maximum daily loss of $503.23 and a resulting threshold of $9,561.34. The company’s response said total losses reached $510.58, with equity falling to $9,553.99 when the account was breached.
That response concerned a different customer and does not resolve the November 6 allegations. It does, however, illustrate the level of detail that could make the current disputes considerably easier to assess.
Similar questions have emerged elsewhere in the proprietary trading industry. A Blue Guardian customer previously challenged a $5,000 account breach and requested the precise equity threshold and server timestamp behind the firm’s decision. Dave Finances examined the Blue Guardian dispute over its account-breach calculation, where the visible trading losses alone were insufficient to establish whether the limit had been crossed.
Another case involving GOAT Funded Trader raised questions about the visibility of separate loss limits in its customer dashboard. The GOAT Funded Trader loss-limit complaints highlighted how a customer can see one risk threshold prominently displayed while another independent restriction also carries account-termination consequences.
For FundingPips, the immediate issue is more specific. The company needs to establish whether the disputed losses were assigned to the correct daily trading periods under the rules applicable to each account.
A customer should recieve a clear explanation connecting the breach to the actual transaction timestamps, opening equity and applicable daily-loss threshold, rather than a general confirmation that a limit was exceeded.
Until those records are available, the November 6 complaints establish that traders are questioning the firm’s daily-loss calculations, but they do not prove that FundingPips’ risk system made an error. The firm has to show the calculation clearly, and not just say the account was breached.
Johan Shamshad is Editor-in-Chief at Dave Finances, covering financial markets, digital assets, trading platforms, brokers, fintech, payments and regulation. Since 2023, he has also worked as an editor at Gulf News, the UAE English-language newspaper published by Al Nisr Publishing LLC. His work focuses on market-moving developments, company disclosures, regulatory changes and trading infrastructure, with an emphasis on primary-source verification and practical context for traders and investors.