Prop firm roundup: Four firms face payout complaints
Four proprietary trading firms are facing fresh customer disputes over rejected payouts, account restrictions and contested trading rules. In today’s prop trading roundup, Upcomers traders challenge withdrawal decisions despite dashboards showing eligibility, FundedSquad customers report repeated rejections, OFP Funding faces a renewed dispute over promised account resets, and an AquaFunded trader questions a profit reduction following a risk violation. The complaints, published between October 27 and 31, remain unverified, although several can be compared with the firms’ published policies.
Upcomers traders challenge payout denials and tiered limits
Upcomers faces a complaint from a trader who says two funded accounts were reset after withdrawal requests were rejected, despite the firm’s dashboard displaying “ALL RULES MET” on both occasions.
In an October 30 Trustpilot review, a customer identified as Yassine said the first account generated $1,409.72 in profit, with no daily or overall drawdown recorded. The second, an Oracle $50,000 account, reportedly produced $2,752.98, also without drawdown and after exceeding the required trading days.
According to the reviewer, both accounts showed payout eligibility before the withdrawals were declined and the accounts reset. The dashboard said yes, but the payout review, apparently, did not.
Upcomers publicly acknowledged the discrepancy described by the customer and invited both cases to be reviewed by its relevant team. The response did not identify a specific trading violation or explain why the dashboard status differed from the subsequent decisions.
The complaint follows an earlier Upcomers payout dispute involving automated trading and rejected profits, reported by DaveFinances on October 26.
A seperate October 30 reviewer challenged the firm’s tiered payout structure, saying a $100,000 account initially permits a $1,000 withdrawal, with higher limits unlocked through successive approved payouts. The customer also objected to consistency and minimum trading-day requirements restarting after each payout.
Unlike the disputed account decisions, several of these restrictions can be confirmed from Upcomers’ published documentation. Its current payout table establishes a $1,000 first-withdrawal ceiling on $100,000 accounts and a $500 first-withdrawal ceiling on $50,000 accounts. The limits rise following fully approved payouts, while partial approvals and rejections do not unlock the next tier.
The firm’s eligibility documentation also confirms that certain programs require five qualifying profitable trading days and a 20% best-day consistency threshold, with conditions varying by program. Oracle accounts additionally have a 2% maximum single-trade loss restriction.
Those rules provide possible grounds for additional compliance checks beyond dashboard indicators. They do not establish which rule, if any, justified the two rejections described by Yassine, or whether the currently published terms match those governing the accounts when purchased.
Another October 30 reviewer said their account was banned after spending more than $500 on challenges. Upcomers apologized for the reported lack of communication and offered a further review, without publicly confirming the reason for the restriction.
FundedSquad customers report repeated withdrawal rejections
FundedSquad received several negative reviews between October 27 and 31, including allegations of repeated payout denials, account termination and contested copy-trading determinations.
On October 30, a reviewer identified as Amish Nakum alleged that the firm had rejected four withdrawal requests. The complaint did not specify the requested amounts or the individual rejection grounds. Four requests, and reportedly none approved.
A separate October 31 customer claimed that FundedSquad rejected a payout and permanently breached a $5,000 account after citing trading-rule violations. The customer said an appeal was unsuccessful.
An earlier October 27 review raised a more specific dispute. Trader Rohit Chaure alleged that FundedSquad rejected a payout on a $100,000 one-step account after accusing the customer of coordinated or copied trading. According to the complaint, the firm supplied a spreadsheet containing other accounts’ transactions, but no accompanying device, login or communication records.
FundedSquad’s published trading rules permit copying between a customer’s own eligible FundedSquad accounts while prohibiting copying from external accounts, other traders and signal providers. Its prohibited-strategies policy also allows account suspension, reward forfeiture and payout rejection for specified violations.
Comparable transactions can be relevant to a coordinated-trading investigation, but the public complaint does not include the spreadsheet or complete order histories needed to evaluate the alleged similarities. The firm has not provided a publicly availble case-specific explanation establishing the violation in these recent reviews.
Trustpilot currently withholds FundedSquad’s rating following a breach of its platform guidelines and states that fake reviews were removed. The platform’s action does not authenticate the payout complaints or establish that the firm’s withdrawal decisions were improper.
OFP Funding customer disputes two promised account resets
OFP Funding faces a renewed complaint concerning two accounts affected by its March 2026 platform migration, with a customer alleging that an earlier written commitment to provide replacement accounts remains unfulfilled.
The reviewer, Siddiq Akbar, says OFP originally identified two accounts as active but carrying negative balances and informed him that the migration would effectively provide a free reset.
According to the customer, repeated follow-ups produced assurances that the migration was continuing. The firm subsequently classified the accounts as breached and therefore ineligible for migration. The reviewer further alleges that OFP said it could no longer access the old dashboard records to determine the reason for the breaches.
In an October 31 update, Akbar challenged OFP’s public response inviting him to submit account information and previous correspondence. He said the details had already been provided and the dispute escalated internally. That was months ago, and the promised reset still isn’t there, the customer says.
The customer is requesting either the two replacement accounts allegedly promised or records establishing when and why the original accounts were breached.
The original correspondance and claimed reset commitment have not been independently authenticated. Without the relevant account records and contractual migration terms, neither the original eligibility classification nor the subsequent breach determination can be conclusively assessed.
This is a different issue from the earlier OFP Funding dispute involving a claimed $5,017 payout reduced to $54. The latest complaint concerns account status, the preservation of historical trading records and whether a written migration commitment was honored.
AquaFunded trader questions $3,780 profit reduction
AquaFunded is facing a complaint from a trader who claims that $3,780 in simulated trading profits became subject to a reduced payout following a floating-risk violation.
In an October 30 review, a customer identified as Abdul Jalil said he purchased a $50,000 Pro two-step challenge, completed its 10% and 5% evaluation targets, and subsequently generated $3,780 in profits on the funded account.
The customer alleges that AquaFunded reduced the payout to 50% following a 2% floating-risk violation and classified the account as having suffered a hard breach. The review does not establish whether the reduction referred to the profit split or the amount ultimately payable.
A comparison with AquaFunded’s published rules reveals a further issue. Its September 24 consistency-policy documentation specifies a 50% threshold for the Two Step Pro funded stage, while the reviewer describes a 20% requirement.
The firm’s general floating-loss documentation also identifies a 2% per-trade threshold for Instant Funding Pro and AquaMan accounts. That documentation does not expressly establish the same restriction for the Two Step Pro program described in the complaint. There is a 2% figure in the rules, yes, but for different programs.
AquaFunded’s dedicated Two Step Pro documentation describes a 5% daily drawdown limit and a 10% trailing total-loss limit, with hard breaches resulting in account closure. The public record does not establish whether the trader breached one of those limits, faced an additional account-specific restriction or purchased under earlier terms.
The case follows previous scrutiny of AquaFunded’s profit-sharing terms and the timing of a reported October change, where company documentation showed that a 90% standard split had been disclosed before the date attributed to the alleged adjustment.
Another October 29 AquaFunded reviewer separately alleged that a $600 withdrawal from a $10,000 account was rejected following a suspected copy-trading review. The available account does not independently establish whether the decision was justified.
Trustpilot also displays review-guideline warnings on the Upcomers, OFP Funding and AquaFunded profiles, as well as FundedSquad’s. The wider issue of review reliability is reflected in the US Federal Trade Commission’s consumer reviews and testimonials rule, which addresses certain fake reviews and misleading endorsements. Neither that regulation nor Trustpilot’s warnings constitute findings of misconduct in these particular payout disputes.
Across the four firms, the unresolved evidence differs: Upcomers’ dashboard records and rejection reasons, FundedSquad’s coordinated-trading analysis, OFP’s migration communications, and AquaFunded’s account-specific risk terms. Customer reviews alone cannot determine the outcomes. Rules are there, but matching them to the conditions actually sold, and then applied, remains the difficult part.
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