Traders Call Out FundingTraders for Post-Challenge Rejections
The prop trading community is once again raising concerns — this time over traders being denied funded accounts by FundingTraders, even after passing evaluations.
A tweet from @King_Shawn246 brought attention to the issue, sharing how he was rejected under the catch-all explanation of “broader risk management.”
Spent 4 weeks doing a challenge with Funding Traders, followed every single rule they had lined out, did not violate anything just for them to turn around and say that I was gambling so my funding will be denied 😂 , fucck me man pic.twitter.com/fSpbc2Uu6L
— Blxcks (@King_Shawn246) March 26, 2025
Adding to the discussion, @TheEuroTrader1 — known for his outspoken takes on the industry — shared that he himself was denied funding by FundingTraders, despite successfully completing their evaluation. His experience echoes the frustrations of many traders who feel blindsided by vague, post-evaluation criteria not disclosed upfront.
I agree. Funding Traders should never have been on PFM in the first place.
— The Euro Trader (@TheEuroTrader1) April 18, 2025
They scammed me after passing their 500k challenge over 3 months because my 'average duration' of trades was different. No shit sherlock... my time in a trade is determined by the market moves!
AVOID!
What’s the Issue?
-
Traders are completing evaluations according to the stated rules.
-
FundingTraders has reportedly denied funding post-challenge, citing unclear internal “risk” decisions.
-
There’s no detailed explanation or appeal — just blanket rejections.
Many traders now question whether prop firms should be more transparent about any discretionary funding policies used after challenges are passed. If the rules are met, they argue, funding should be granted — or at least, clear reasons should be communicated.
As more traders turn to prop firms for capital access, the call is growing louder for transparency, consistency, and accountability in the evaluation-to-funding pipeline.
Disclaimer:
Some of the embedded tweets in this article contain strong language that may not be suitable for all readers. The views expressed in these posts are those of the individual users and do not reflect the views of FxVerify. Viewer discretion is advised.