🚨 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐑𝐒, 𝐎𝐏𝐄𝐍 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐄𝐘𝐄𝐒 — 𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐏 𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐃𝐋𝐘 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆. @fundingpips & @Khldfx . READ THIS BEFORE YOU BUY AN ACCOUNT. 📅 7 July – I received an email stating that my ongoing $50K Phase 1 challenge was being breached for a CID violation. No evidence was attached. 📅 9 July – I emailed FundingPips asking for proof. No response. 📅 11 July – I contacted support. Their response? "We cannot share the proof due to privacy reasons." Privacy reasons? How does showing the suspected account number, login date, and time violate anyone's privacy? I explained that there must be a mistake. Their answer: "We rechecked the issue. The ban is fair." Case closed. No evidence provided. 📅 15 July – I started posting publicly asking for the evidence. After posting daily and commenting on FundingPips-related posts, I finally received the "proof" on 28 July. That's 21 days later. The proof that should have been included in the original breach email only appeared after public pressure on X. So the proof can be posted on social media, but it can't be shared privately with the trader being accused? And here's where it gets interesting. The alleged CID violation wasn't from my active $50K challenge. It was supposedly from December, 7 months earlier, on a $100K Phase 1 account. The same account that: ✅ Passed Phase 1 ✅ Passed Phase 2 ✅ Passed review ✅ Received a Master Account ✅ Was traded for weeks ✅ Was eventually breached during a losing streak Only when I later purchased a new $50K challenge did FundingPips suddenly decide that this old account had a CID violation. So what caused it? A copier. I was managing more than 5 accounts, so before using @Duplikium I specifically asked FundingPips moderators in Discord whether I could use a copier. Their answer: "Use any copier." I used Duplikium. Later, Duplikium confirmed that: ✅ I was using their service ✅ The account in question was connected to their infrastructure I submitted the confirmations, the timeline, and my explanation to @avikkfp email . I also posted everything publicly. The result? Silence. No meaningful review. No acknowledgement of the counter-evidence. Just the same decision. At this point, I don't even want to trade with your firm anymore. But when your own evidence is challenged with documented counter-evidence, the least you can do is refund the money traders paid instead of ignoring them. Transparency shouldn't require public pressure. Evidence shouldn't appear 21 days after a ban. And traders shouldn't be expected to accept accusations without a fair review.

🚨 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐑𝐒, 𝐎𝐏𝐄𝐍 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐄𝐘𝐄𝐒 — 𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐏 𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐃𝐋𝐘 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆. @fundingpips & @Khldfx . READ THIS BEFORE YOU BUY AN ACCOUNT. 📅 7 July – I received an email stating that my ongoing $50K Phase 1 challenge was being breached for a CID violation. No evidence was attached. 📅 9 July – I emailed FundingPips asking for proof. No response. 📅 11 July – I contacted support. Their response? "We cannot share the proof due to privacy reasons." Privacy reasons? How does showing the suspected account number, login date, and time violate anyone's privacy? I explained that there must be a mistake. Their answer: "We rechecked the issue. The ban is fair." Case closed. No evidence provided. 📅 15 July – I started posting publicly asking for the evidence. After posting daily and commenting on FundingPips-related posts, I finally received the "proof" on 28 July. That's 21 days later. The proof that should have been included in the original breach email only appeared after public pressure on X. So the proof can be posted on social media, but it can't be shared privately with the trader being accused? And here's where it gets interesting. The alleged CID violation wasn't from my active $50K challenge. It was supposedly from December, 7 months earlier, on a $100K Phase 1 account. The same account that: ✅ Passed Phase 1 ✅ Passed Phase 2 ✅ Passed review ✅ Received a Master Account ✅ Was traded for weeks ✅ Was eventually breached during a losing streak Only when I later purchased a new $50K challenge did FundingPips suddenly decide that this old account had a CID violation. So what caused it? A copier. I was managing more than 5 accounts, so before using @Duplikium I specifically asked FundingPips moderators in Discord whether I could use a copier. Their answer: "Use any copier." I used Duplikium. Later, Duplikium confirmed that: ✅ I was using their service ✅ The account in question was connected to their infrastructure I submitted the confirmations, the timeline, and my explanation to @avikkfp email . I also posted everything publicly. The result? Silence. No meaningful review. No acknowledgement of the counter-evidence. Just the same decision. At this point, I don't even want to trade with your firm anymore. But when your own evidence is challenged with documented counter-evidence, the least you can do is refund the money traders paid instead of ignoring them. Transparency shouldn't require public pressure. Evidence shouldn't appear 21 days after a ban. And traders shouldn't be expected to accept accusations without a fair review.

🚨 𝗔𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗔𝗚𝗘 𝗙𝗨𝗡𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗚𝗣𝗜𝗣𝗦 𝗙𝗔𝗡𝗕𝗢𝗬 𝗕𝗘𝗛𝗔𝗩𝗜𝗢𝗥 🚨 The moment someone posts a complaint about FundingPips, they jump into the comments. 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀. 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲. 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰. 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗲. Meanwhile, here's what actually happened in my case: ✅ I asked a FundingPips moderator whether I could use Duplikium. ✅ I was told I could use any copier of my choice. ✅ I used Duplikium. ✅ I passed Phase 1. ✅ I passed Phase 2. ✅ I passed review. ✅ I received a Master Account. ✅ I traded that Master Account. ✅ Months later, my new $50K challenge was breached over an alleged CID violation connected to the old account. The same account that had already gone through every stage of their review process. The same account that had already been approved. The same account that had already resulted in a Master Account being issued. Then came the evidence process. 📅 17 days to provide evidence. 📅 64+ days without a resolution. 📅 MT5 login logs submitted. 📅 Duplikium confirmations submitted. 📅 Dashboard records submitted. 📅 Evidence that shared infrastructure can create CID matches submitted. 📅 Counter-evidence acknowledged but not accepted. And when all of this is presented publicly, many FundingPips defenders don't explain: ❓ Why the account passed every review stage. ❓ Why the alleged violation appeared months later. ❓ Why third-party confirmations were not sufficient. ❓ Why a CID match should outweigh all other evidence. Instead, the response is: @Trillionarie369 ➡️ Abuse. ➡️ Personal attacks. ➡️ Deflection. If my argument is wrong, explain where. If my evidence is wrong, show why. If my timeline is wrong, correct it. If FundingPips followed a fair process, demonstrate it. 𝗙𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗸𝗮 𝗷𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗯 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝘀𝗲 𝗱𝗼. @avikkfp @ErkanOriginal @Khldfx

🚨 BLACKMAILING TRADERS FOR 5-STAR TRUSTPILOT REVIEWS? 🚨 @thefundedroom @thetraderoom_ "GIVE US 5 STARS OR NO ACCOUNT" – IS THIS ETHICAL? @Trustpilot WHY SHOULD TRADERS TRUST AN INDIAN🇮🇳 PROP FIRM THAT DEMANDS 5-STAR REVIEWS BUT FAILS TO HONOR ITS PROMISES? The issue here is no longer about "toxic trading." According to the emails, the trader was told that his account was eligible for reissue and that the previous toxic trading decision would no longer be used as a reason to deny the account. The only thing requested was a Trustpilot review through their invitation link. Then things took a concerning turn. The trader was allegedly told that for the account to be reissued, he must: ✅ Leave a 5-star rating ✅ Write a positive review ✅ Wait for the review to go live ✅ Send proof of the review And only then would the account be reissued. That is not a neutral review request. Trustpilot's own guidelines state that businesses must use fair and unbiased review invitations, must not ask specifically for positive reviews or 5-star ratings, and must not pressure users with incentives or conditions tied to reviews. More importantly, if you tell a trader: "Complete these steps and your account will be reissued within 24 hours." Then once the trader completes those steps, you should honor that commitment. What makes this situation worse is that the trader claims he did exactly what was asked. He left the 5-star review, provided the proof, and still has not received the promised account reissue or any meaningful response. If the firm made a mistake, communicate it. If the reissue is under review, communicate it. If additional checks are required, communicate them. But asking for a 5-star review as a condition and then failing to fulfill the promised reissue after the trader complies raises serious questions about fairness and ethics. A review should reflect a customer's genuine experience, not become a requirement for accessing a product or service. And when a company gives its word to a trader, that word should mean something. TheFundedRoom should publicly clarify this case and either honor the reissue they promised or explain exactly why the promise was not fulfilled.

1/ 🚨 My $125,000 Scaled Account Termination & $8,230 Payout Rejection – My Experience with @the5erstrading Everything I state below is supported by the full email conversation, which I am attaching so everyone can review it themselves. 🧵👇

FundingPips permanently closed all of my accounts, accused me of violating their rules through a “shared Device ID,” but refused to provide any evidence to support team @fundingpips @Khldfx @avikkfp @propscamReport @coachblueforex