FundingPips is facing fresh complaints from traders who say their accounts were permanently terminated over device-ID or Shared CID matches, including one funded customer who says the ban came only hours after he used trade copying that FundingPips’ own published rules explicitly permit between accounts belonging to the same person.
An Italian reviewer posting on October 4 said he had traded with FundingPips for months, held a $5,000 funded account and received two payouts before purchasing a new $50,000 account.
According to the trader, he repeatedly asked FundingPips support whether he could copy trades between his own accounts and was repeatedly told that he could.
He said he then placed his first copied trade on the $50,000 account. The position closed at break-even. A few hours later, he said FundingPips permanently banned his profile because of a “Device ID match with another user.”
The allegation is unverified. The trader says he possesses screenshots, emails and support conversations but has not publicly provided enough material to independently reconstruct FundingPips’ internal detection or establish why the device match occurred.
FundingPips’ Published Rules Explicitly Allow Same-Owner Copy Trading
The complaint becomes more significant because FundingPips’ current Trading Conduct and Security Standards draw a clear distinction between copying your own accounts and copying somebody else’s.
The firm says copying trades between FundingPips accounts registered under the same individual is permitted.
It separately prohibits copying between accounts belonging to different users, coordinated trading among accounts owned by different individuals and third-party account management.
FundingPips goes even further in its FAQ, stating that traders may use the same directional strategy across their own accounts and that copying trades between their own accounts in the same direction is allowed.
The company’s own Trade Copier product is built around that functionality. A FundingPips account can serve as the lead account, while a follower can itself be another FundingPips account. Up to four trading accounts can be connected during the copier’s beta launch.
That does not prove the Italian trader complied with every other FundingPips rule. A device-ID flag could theoretically arise independently from the copied trade, and FundingPips may hold login or fingerprinting evidence that is not publicly available.
But it creates a precise question for the firm: if same-owner copying is permitted, what exactly did the system detect that caused this trader to be classified as matching “another user”?
A Second Oct. 4 Complaint Revives an Older Shared-CID Dispute
A separate reviewer also posted on October 4 about account 20340758, which they said FundingPips terminated on July 17.
The trader claimed the account had generated approximately 12.9% profit before the company cited a “Shared CID” or device-ID match.
The reviewer denied sharing their account, device, phone, laptop, login credentials or trading access with anyone and said they requested the underlying IP addresses, timestamps, login records and device-fingerprint evidence.
According to the complaint, FundingPips did not provide those details, rejected the appeal and described the decision as final. The reviewer said the dispute remained unresolved 79 days later.
The termination itself is therefore not new. What changed on October 4 is that another trader independently surfaced a similar type of allegation, making the device-ID enforcement issue worth examining as a cluster rather than as a single isolated complaint.
This Is Not FundingPips’ First Public Device-ID Dispute
Dave Finances previously examined another case in which a FundingPips trader said a device-ID match ended their Master Account shortly before a payout.
Another recent Trustpilot complaint provides a different possible explanation for how these matches can arise.
A UK customer said FundingPips permanently banned them on October 1 because their device ID matched another registered user. The trader claimed the device had previously belonged to somebody else who had used it with their own FundingPips profile before it changed hands.
That explanation is also unverified, but it illustrates the central technical problem with device fingerprints.
A device identifier can be useful evidence of account sharing, but a match is not necessarily synonymous with two users simultaneously controlling the same account. Computers can be sold, shared within households, reinstalled or used in communal environments. Fraud-detection systems therefore generally become most persuasive when a device match is combined with IP history, session timing, identity data or correlated trading behavior.
FundingPips Allows Multiple Devices
The company’s own security policy adds another relevant detail.
FundingPips says traders may use multiple devices within the same city during both the evaluation and Master Account stages. It also permits multiple internet service providers and says ordinary switching between Wi-Fi and mobile data within the same geographic area should not be a concern.
Its rules focus more heavily on unrealistic geographic changes, VPN or VPS use and evidence that someone other than the account holder is trading.
That suggests the firm’s anti-sharing framework is not simply based on a rule that one trader must use one physical computer.
The unanswered question is what FundingPips means technically by “Device ID” or “Shared CID,” how persistent that identifier is, and what additional evidence is required before a match is treated as proof that two different users have accessed related accounts.
Copy Trading Makes the Detection Problem More Complicated
The introduction of FundingPips’ own trade copier potentially makes the anti-fraud problem harder.
Legitimate same-owner accounts can now be expected to produce highly correlated trades: identical entries, exits and instruments occurring at effectively the same moment.
Those same patterns could previously have been useful signals for detecting coordinated trading or account management between unrelated users.
The system therefore needs a reliable way to distinguish two very different scenarios.
In one, a single verified trader links their own $5,000 and $50,000 accounts through an approved copier.
In the other, two unrelated customers coordinate trades or allow one person to control both accounts.
The trade data alone may look nearly identical.
That makes the identity and device layer more important—but also raises the consequences of a false match.
The issue resembles the disputes that surfaced when FunderBlu traders challenged account closures linked to alleged copy trading. The difficult question is often not whether the firm has the right to prohibit coordinated trading, but whether its evidence can reliably distinguish prohibited coordination from activity that its own rules allow.
A Break-Even Trade Makes the Timing Notable, but Proves Nothing by Itself
The Italian reviewer emphasizes that the copied $50,000 trade closed at break-even before the account was terminated.
That makes the sequence interesting because the dispute was apparently not triggered by a large payout or unusually profitable trade.
However, it does not prove that the copied trade caused the ban.
Automated security systems can identify historical device associations or login relationships asynchronously. A flag generated hours after a particular trade may relate to information collected much earlier.
That is why the customer’s claimed support records matter more than the break-even result.
If the trader can establish that FundingPips knew exactly which two accounts he intended to connect, confirmed in writing that the configuration complied with its rules and then terminated those same accounts specifically because their approved connection created an anti-sharing match, the policy conflict would become much stronger.
The Missing Evidence Is FundingPips’ Side of the Match
FundingPips has legitimate reasons not to publish every parameter of its fraud-detection system. Revealing precise device-fingerprinting methods could make them easier to evade.
But there is a difference between keeping detection technology confidential and explaining the basis for a permanent account termination.
In disputes involving significant simulated profits or pending cash rewards, traders need enough information to understand whether the company detected a second person, a second FundingPips identity, a previously registered device, shared network infrastructure or something else entirely.
Other prop-firm disputes have raised the same transparency problem. Dave Finances reported how Trade the Pool revisited earlier trading activity during a later payout audit, while an Exclusive Funded trader questioned an extended review of a $4,237 payout.
The firms may ultimately have valid evidence. But when the evidence remains private, outsiders can verify the policy and the customer’s allegation—not whether the internal conclusion was correct.
The Core Question Is Whether Two Compliance Systems Are Colliding
FundingPips’ published position is clear on one point: a trader may copy trades between their own FundingPips accounts.
Its security controls are equally clear in principle: different users must not share or coordinate accounts.
The new complaints raise the possibility that those two systems can collide.
If legitimate same-owner accounts are correctly linked to one identity, the copier should not make them look like unauthorized different-user accounts. If the ban instead arose because one of the devices had an independent relationship with another FundingPips customer, the firm should be able to distinguish that issue from permitted copy trading.
For now, there is not enough evidence to say FundingPips’ detection system produced a false positive.
There is enough evidence to ask the company a much narrower question:
What creates a “Device ID match with another user,” and what safeguards prevent that signal from permanently terminating traders whose account relationships and copying activity otherwise comply with FundingPips’ own published rules?
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.