Upcomers faces another customer complaint over the enforcement of its funded trading account rules. In the latest prop trading roundup, a Czech trader alleges that $1,100 in Bitcoin swap charges consumed more than half his daily loss allowance and contributed to an account breach. The November 14 allegation follows a separate November 12 dispute over a $144 equity discrepancy that reportedly triggered the liquidation of 15 positions. Both cases concern account risk calculations, although neither establishes that Upcomers incorrectly applied its rules.
Trader alleges $1,100 Bitcoin swap charges led to breach
Czech trader Jaroslav Havala challenged Upcomers’ overnight financing charges in a November 14 Trustpilot review, alleging that two Bitcoin positions incurred a combined $1,100 deduction.
Havala said he opened two positions on a Friday, each described as 0.5 BTC, and was subsequently charged $1,100 in swap fees. According to his account, the deduction exceeded 50% of his daily drawdown allowance and contributed to the funded account breaching its loss limit after several losing trades.
Two positions, one $1,100 deduction, then a breach, according to the trader.
The reported fee implies that the account’s daily loss allowance was less than $2,200, assuming the trader’s comparison is accurate. The review does not identify the account’s nominal size, challenge type, applicable daily drawdown percentage or starting equity.
Nor does it establish whether the positions represented one Bitcoin of actual contract exposure. The trader described each position as 0.5 BTC, but the corresponding MetaTrader 5 contract specifications are not publicly availble.
Without the instrument’s contract size, trading direction, applicable swap rate and number of rollovers, the reported $1,100 charge cannot be independently recalculated.
Upcomers had not published an account-specific explanation of Havala’s swap calculation in the public review thread examined. The complaint remains an unverified customer allegation rather than an established pricing error.
Upcomers’ rollover rules allow triple swap charges
Upcomers’ official documentation confirms that overnight financing charges apply to CFD positions held through the daily trading rollover. The firm states that the charge depends on the financial instrument and whether the position is long or short.
These charges are deducted from the account balance. Traders can check the applicable rates through the Specification section of MetaTrader 5 on desktop or the Properties section on mobile.
The firm’s rules also provide for triple swap charges on certain days to account for weekend financing. Most instruments incur these charges on Wednesdays, while some assets use Fridays.
Friday is part of the complaint, but the instrument’s actual triple-swap day is still missing.
Consequently, the fact that Havala opened his Bitcoin positions on a Friday does not establish whether either position incurred a triple charge. The relevant BTCUSD specifications and rollover timestamp would be needed to determine the applicable multiplier.
There is also a timing difference between the trading platform and Upcomers’ account-risk calculations.
According to the company’s guidance, MetaTrader 5 begins a new trading day at midnight server time, using GMT+1 during standard time and GMT+2 during daylight saving time. Upcomers resets its daily drawdown separately at 00:00 UTC.
There are two clocks here, and they do not quite line up.
During November, midnight server time corresponds to 23:00 UTC under the published standard-time setting. A rollover charge can therefore be posted before the UTC-based daily drawdown reset.
The order of those events can affect the available loss buffer, depending on the account’s balance, equity and open positions. Without Havala’s actual trading statement, however, it is not possible to determine which daily risk period absorbed the disputed charge or when the breach occured.
Earlier Upcomers complaint also challenges drawdown calculation
The latest allegation follows an earlier Upcomers drawdown dispute involving a Nigerian customer who challenged the automatic liquidation of 15 positions on a $5,000 Vanguard account.
In a November 12 review, the trader reported a starting balance of $5,394.80 and calculated a daily loss threshold of $5,179.01. He claimed his final closed balance was $5,240.25, but Upcomers’ breach record allegedly showed equity falling to $5,096.19.
The customer disputed the resulting $144.06 difference and requested a tick-by-tick audit. Upcomers publicly acknowledged the complaint and invited further examination without confirming that its liquidation calculation was incorrect.
Under the firm’s published daily drawdown formula, the loss threshold is calculated at 00:00 UTC using whichever is higher between the account’s equity and balance. The relevant threshold is monitored against live equity throughout the day.
A final closed balance, though, does not always capture the lowest intraday equity reading.
Floating losses, spreads, commissions and overnight financing charges can affect the amount of equity available before a breach is triggered. The November 12 customer’s closing balance therefore does not independently disprove the lower equity figure reported in his complaint.
Similar evidentiary questions have appeared in a Blue Guardian account-breach dispute, where a customer requested the precise equity reading and timestamp behind an automatic account closure.
Another GOAT Funded Trader complaint concerned the display of different risk thresholds, including a maximum floating-loss rule that operated independently of the headline daily drawdown allowance.
Those cases involve seperate firms and trading conditions. They provide examples of disputes over automated risk enforcement, not evidence that the Upcomers charges or account closures were improper.
FCA warns about high overnight CFD charges
The complaint also comes shortly after Britain’s Financial Conduct Authority raised renewed concerns about overnight funding costs among regulated CFD providers.
In its October 15, 2026 review of CFD firms’ pricing practices, the FCA reported considerable differences in overnight charges between providers and instruments.
The regulator found that some funding charges appeared high relative to prevailing interest rates and peer comparisons. It also questioned whether firms provided sufficiently clear information about the costs of maintaining open CFD positions.
The FCA’s findings concern authorised firms operating under its consumer-protection framework. They do not constitute a regulatory finding against Upcomers, and that framework should not automatically be applied to simulated proprietary trading accounts.
The review nevertheless provides relevant pricing context: overnight CFD financing is not uniform, and unusually large charges require examination of the underlying rate and contract terms rather than the dollar amount alone.
For Havala’s complaint, the decisive evidence would include the BTCUSD contract specifications applicable to his account, the long or short direction of both positions, their opening and closing timestamps, and the swap entries recorded by MetaTrader 5.
The risk-system record would also need to show the account’s starting balance and equity, the exact daily threshold, the time the financing charge was applied and the equity level that triggered closure.
The documents aren’t there yet, at least not in the public record.
Havala alleges that a $1,100 financing deduction consumed most of his available risk buffer and contributed to losing the funded account. Upcomers’ published policies establish that overnight swaps and triple charges can apply, but they do not verify the amount charged to this customer.
Until the applicable swap rate and account-level drawdown calculaton are disclosed, the available evidence supports the existence of a contested charge and reported breach, not a conclusion that the firm miscalculated either one.
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.