Proprietary trading firm FunderPro has defended its decision to terminate a Spanish trader’s funded account and reject a payout over suspected account sharing, saying its compliance findings went beyond similarities between IP addresses. However, the company has declined to publish the underlying login records or security indicators supporting the decision.
The dispute emerged in an October 12, 2026, Trustpilot review from a trader identified as BCSL, who questioned whether FunderPro had mistaken ordinary Spanish internet-provider addresses for evidence of coordinated account access.
FunderPro responded that its decision followed broader system analysis and manual review, while directing the customer to its formal appeals process. The publicly available information does not establish whether the trader violated the firm’s rules or whether the account was incorrectly terminated.
Spanish Trader Questions Telefónica and Vodafone IP Evidence
BCSL said FunderPro failed the funded account and declined the associated payout under Clause 13.4 of its trading terms, citing an alleged IP-sharing or account-access violation.
According to the complaint, FunderPro supplied partially masked IP addresses that it considered suspicious. The trader said the visible portions corresponded to ordinary allocations belonging to Telefónica de España and Vodafone España, rather than infrastructure that obviously indicated account sharing.
The customer maintained that all trading took place through MetaTrader 5 on a personal iPhone, using home Wi-Fi, mobile data and an office internet connection.
On October 2, the trader requested further details about the alleged matches. Specifically, BCSL wanted to know whether another customer had used exactly the same public IP address or merely an address within the same internet-service-provider range.
The trader also asked whether the matching account belonged to the same person, whether FunderPro had detected another device, and which login sessions were considered suspicious.
BCSL said those questions had not received a substantive answer and offered to match the disputed connections against personal network usage if the relevant timestamps were provided.
However, identifying an internet provider from an IP allocation does not establish which customer controlled an address at a particular moment. The full addresses, login timestamps and underlying account relationships have not been made publicly available for independent verification.
FunderPro Says IP Similarities Alone Did Not Determine the Decision
FunderPro disputed the suggestion that its compliance team had relied solely on overlapping network addresses.
In its public Trustpilot response, the company said account-access reviews considered wider patterns and additional security indicators identified through automated systems and manual assessment.
It did not specify which additional indicators were present in BCSL’s account.
The company also stated that it would not publicly release raw access logs, individual login details or proprietary detection criteria because of security and privacy considerations.
Instead, FunderPro advised the trader to pursue the formal appeal process and provide further supporting information for its risk team to evaluate.
The distinction is important. FunderPro has offered a broader explanation of its review methodology, but its public response does not independently demonstrate what unauthorized activity, if any, occurred in this particular account.
That does not mean the company’s finding was incorrect. The missing information could contain evidence of coordinated access that is not apparent from the partial IP ranges described by the trader.
Clause 13.4 Covers Coordinated Trading, Not Merely Matching IP Prefixes
FunderPro’s currently published terms and conditions provide useful context for the dispute.
Clause 13.4 prohibits coordinated trading between linked accounts, including arrangements involving shared devices, trading environments, virtual private servers and IP addresses when those arrangements enable linked or non-independent trading behavior.
The clause also addresses opposing positions across accounts, shared trading arrangements and other practices designed to produce artificial trading outcomes.
The wording is broader than a simple ban on two customers appearing within the same internet-provider allocation. The key issue is whether the technical connection reflects prohibited coordination or non-independent account activity.
There is also a contractual qualification: the published terms govern FunderPro’s Challenge arrangements and state that funded traders are subject to a separate Funded Trader Service Agreement. The exact agreement governing BCSL’s account, including the applicable version of Clause 13.4, has not been independently reviewed.
Other proprietary trading firms have introduced increasingly restrictive infrastructure policies. Dave Finances recently reported that GOAT Funded Trader banned VPNs and VPSs across its accounts, demonstrating how network configuration can become a direct account-compliance issue.
Trader Acknowledges Two Separate Margin Rule Violations
The complaint contains another significant detail: BCSL acknowledged that two short positions in metals exceeded FunderPro’s 20% margin cap.
The trader argued that those transactions should have been handled under the firm’s published first-violation policy, which calls for deducting profits from the breaching trades and issuing a warning while allowing the funded account to continue.
FunderPro’s help documentation states that a second margin violation results in account failure and rejection of any remaining payout.
However, the company maintained that its margin review and account-access investigation were separate matters. The trader likewise said FunderPro had confirmed in private correspondence that the margin violations were not the reason the account failed.
The exact sequencing and classification of the two trades have not been independently verified. Consequently, it is not possible to determine from the review alone whether they constituted one margin violation or two separate violations under the applicable policy.
Even if the first-violation remedy applied to the margin issue, it would not automatically reverse an independently established account-sharing breach.
Shared IP Addresses Create a Difficult Compliance Problem
The dispute highlights a weakness in treating network identifiers as evidence of trading-account ownership.
Mobile operators and internet providers frequently use shared public addresses, dynamic allocations and carrier-grade network address translation. Multiple unrelated customers can therefore appear to connect through the same public IP address without sharing a device, credentials or trading strategy.
Corporate networks create similar complications because employees may access the internet through common gateways.
Yet prop firms have legitimate reasons to investigate these patterns. Outsourced challenge passing, account rentals and coordinated trading can undermine rules intended to measure individual performance.
The question is how firms distinguish suspicious coordination from normal network behavior.
Device identifiers, overlapping sessions, unusual login sequences and trading correlations may provide stronger evidence than an ISP match alone. But those indicators also require interpretation, particularly when the trader uses one mobile device across several networks.
The problem resembles a FundingPips copy-trading suspension dispute, where the underlying evidence linking allegedly coordinated accounts became central to assessing the decision.
The Real Issue Is Whether Traders Can Challenge the Evidence
FunderPro’s reluctance to disclose security data publicly is understandable. Publishing complete detection rules could help dishonest traders evade them, while raw logs might expose information about unrelated customers.
But there is considerable distance between releasing an entire fraud-detection system and providing a customer with enough information to challenge an adverse finding.
A privacy-preserving disclosure could identify disputed session times, distinguish exact IP matches from network-prefix overlaps, and describe whether device or trading-pattern correlations supported the finding without revealing another customer’s identity.
That would allow BCSL to test the explanation against home, mobile and office network records.
A comparable transparency problem emerged when an Orbit Funded trader challenged a 15-minute hedging restriction using disputed trade intervals. In both situations, the central question is whether the evidence actually satisfies the stated rule.
For prop traders, these decisions carry direct financial consequences. As explained in Dave Finances’ examination of the difference between prop firms and brokers, simulated trading profits typically become cash rewards through contractual arrangements rather than conventional brokerage-account ownership.
That makes compliance decisions especially important when determining whether accumulated performance qualifies for payment.
What Would Resolve the FunderPro Dispute?
Three pieces of evidence would materially clarify the case: the contractual provision applicable to BCSL’s funded account, a privacy-preserving explanation of the suspicious access connections, and a precise account of the conduct FunderPro considers prohibited.
If the review identified coordinated trading, the company could explain the category of correlation involved without disclosing another customer’s confidential records or its complete detection methodology.
If the connections reflected ordinary network sharing, the trader’s request for timestamps could provide a practical way to challenge an incorrect classification.
Neither possibility has been established publicly.
The margin issue also requires separate treatment. BCSL’s acknowledgment of excessive exposure does not validate an unrelated account-sharing allegation, while a potentially correct margin adjustment does not excuse a genuine access violation.
For now, FunderPro has publicly defended its process without revealing the decisive account-level evidence. The trader has questioned the available IP information without disproving the company’s broader findings.
The outcome of any appeal, and whether the firm provides sufficient evidence for a meaningful challenge, will determine whether this remains an individual account dispute or becomes a more significant example of the transparency problems confronting retail proprietary trading.
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