Prop Firm Hub | Page 1381 | Metals Mine

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Anyone trading with a Prop firm 31 replies

So I accepted a Prop Trading job in South Beach Miami 44 replies

prop firm new model - my trading journey 871 replies

Attachments: Prop Firm Hub
Exit Attachments

Prop Firm Hub

  • #27,601
  • Edited 6:06pm Dec 30, 2023 4:02pm | Edited 6:06pm
Quoting montygoldy
Anyone used e8funding 3 steps. Any reviews, comments or anything. Looking at their 400k 3step feels like a sweet deal…
especially now... christmas deal... 5% for each stage
I'm tempted. Except 1. US based...though they seem to be positioning to move if MFF fallout spreads.
2. some complaints of brutal spread and slipping at various times that killed accounts
3. They're on Takisd's list of financially vulnerable companies...

thoughts?
  • #27,602
  • Dec 30, 2023 7:28pm Dec 30, 2023 7:28pm
Hello guys,

Do you guys know of any prop firm like my flash funding with low profit targets? 6%

Thanks
Drawdown is more important than Account Size !
  • #27,603
  • Dec 30, 2023 7:37pm Dec 30, 2023 7:37pm
Quoting procrude
Hello guys, Do you guys know of any prop firm like my flash funding with low profit targets? 6% Thanks
I just passed phase 1
I think they even plugged in on evaluation
Spread and slippage change so quickly
  • #27,604
  • Dec 30, 2023 7:44pm Dec 30, 2023 7:44pm
Quoting HengkiTjen
{quote} I just passed phase 1 I think they even plugged in on evaluation Spread and slippage change so quickly
I passed the first phase with my flash funding too but in the second phase I noticed something is not rite...but I am still in it...trying to pass ($100k)
Drawdown is more important than Account Size !
  • #27,605
  • Dec 30, 2023 8:07pm Dec 30, 2023 8:07pm
Quoting procrude
{quote} I passed the first phase with my flash funding too but in the second phase I noticed something is not rite...but I am still in it...trying to pass ($100k)
yeah is shady
well just, cant refund keep going with wider SL
  • #27,606
  • Dec 30, 2023 8:46pm Dec 30, 2023 8:46pm
Quoting AaronPriest
If true, then the CFTC has a problem with the entire prop firm business model, as we expected.
-Yes. When I see that the CFTC is talking about having concerns regarding conflicts of interest, it is difficult for me to take it seriously. Where is the concern with B-book brokers and casinos? I have an obvious conflict of interest with the IRS, but I still have to pay them.

They also talk about MFF violating regulations by offering trading in leveraged forex and commodity contracts to retail customers, but how are they doing that if everything is simulated on a demo account and no real trading is occurring? People can pretend to do a lot of things; that doesn't make it illegal. Maybe they can go after Monopoly players for making real estate transactions without a license.

I think that this obvious discernment should be given more attention, but that the CFTC will not want to address it, as it could completely blow their case and prevent them from carrying out their plan of obliterating the entire remote prop market.

The whole question all along should have been whether or not operating in this way was legal and even subject to regulation in the first place. However, the CFTC has entered into this as if it is unquestionably not legal and that regulation is obvious. But I just do not think that this is (or should be) correct. Certainly, we need clarity on the matter. I am not delusional to expect that we will get that clarity, though.

The point about misleading customers is valid, but that should be handled by a different agency.

I am not educated about this stuff, so I am probably wrong, but this is how I see it from a layman's perspective.
  • #27,607
  • Dec 30, 2023 8:48pm Dec 30, 2023 8:48pm
Quoting Astartes
{quote} Would you be willing to show us what the email said exactly in its entirety? Please and thank you.
Someone else posted his email in discord, and the admins there asked him to keep the email conversations confidential. It's worded slightly differently from mine, but says the same things basically. Makes me think they do edit each email individually, so I'm not going to dox myself while they are still paying out.
They did point to this link https://ftmo.com/en/gambling-is-not-...to-make-money/ and said I was doing one-sided betting and that a risk of up to 1% of the account size is legit trading.

I don't disagree that it was risky. I've decided to just limit my lot sizes and (hopefully) continue getting paid.
  • #27,608
  • Edited Dec 31, 2023 12:09am Dec 30, 2023 11:42pm | Edited Dec 31, 2023 12:09am
Quoting Takisd
{quote} Its correct, but the context that Nok is using is incorrect. This is a response to the judge saying they need to talk about changing the website content. MFF proposed something, CFTC rejected it all. Its normal legal stuff and means nothing.
If MFF agreed to all the CFTC's demanded consumer disclosure updated language on their website... not a damn thing would change! Add realtime evaluation pass fail & payout % statistics on the frontpage too while you're at it! Most of the get rich yesterday crowd and degenerate gamblers don't read anything. The same questions being asked over and over in their discord for years proves as much. MFF warned traders... don't trade NFP & CPI every month... people still tried to trade NFP & CPI every month lol

Sounds like the Judge is going to have to step in and rule one way or the other if the CFTC has any legal right to regulate a simulated/virtual trading model with no actual real market positions or counterparty.
  • #27,609
  • Dec 31, 2023 12:46am Dec 31, 2023 12:46am
Quoting CableJ
Sounds like the Judge is going to have to step in and rule one way or the other if the CFTC has any legal right to regulate a simulated/virtual trading model with no actual real market positions or counterparty.
-That's just it. Might as well regulate Monopoly games to ensure that all players hold the proper real estate licenses.

Oh, but real money is involved. Okay... same with many industries where people pay real fee-money to take a test in order to get properly-licensed for a job etc..

I think, the only real angle here would be the possible A-booking. But even then, these trades were simply copied from signal providers. Those signal providers were not trading anything real, so MFF wasn't offering anything other than payment to independent contractors for services rendered (providing data).

So maybe the A-booked traders will need to register as a Commodity Trading Advisor.

I really hope that the judge will not play along with the CFTC's game, and will actually look at the real issues here.
  • #27,610
  • Dec 31, 2023 12:59am Dec 31, 2023 12:59am
The documents above are just posturing. Thats why its all really stupid and i stopped posting about it.

The CFTC has to have that opinion and has to state it so as to not show a weak hand. MFF has to show that side to placate the judge. It will end with a final decision from motions and not from this type of over hyped nonsense. MFF will post motions, special master will recommend a ruling, judge will rule. Back and forth until an accepted settlement is reached. There is no hype decision, no "oh no the world is going to change", no reason to get excited on twitter, no reason to think that MFF will win or lose, no reason to think the CFTC is right. Its all just legal posturing.

PI premia facie rulings have a really low bar to cross to pass. One of the reasons the CFTC settles all these cases before trial is just that, getting a verdict is 50/50 at best and in order to guarantee you get something you settle.

So until settlement, no use paying attention to anything.
  • #27,611
  • Dec 31, 2023 1:14am Dec 31, 2023 1:14am
Quoting Takisd
The documents above are just posturing. .../... So until settlement, no use paying attention to anything.
-What is the fun in that?
  • #27,612
  • Edited 1:37am Dec 31, 2023 1:22am | Edited 1:37am
MFF proposed updated terms of service...


Include the following language in the MFF Terms of Service on the website:

All accounts MFF provides to its customers are simulated accounts. All trading in simulated accounts relies
on simulated market feeds to create trading conditions for customers.

MFF retains all registration fees from its customers and does not use customer registration fees to purchase
commodities, futures, CFDs, or any other investment instruments on behalf of its customers. MFF is not a
broker and does not accept any deposits from its customers. Nevertheless, a customer can lose the right to a
refund of the registration fee(s) if the customer does not meet MFF’s performance benchmarks or otherwise
violates MFF’s applicable program rules.

Trades in simulated Accounts are not made in live markets and do not incur actual profits or losses.
Customers do not trade with real funds or against real counterparties. MFF is not the counterparty to any
trading in simulated accounts. At no point in any of the programs will customers trade real financial
instruments such as CFDs, securities, futures, or commodities. All simulated trades are fictitious in nature
and do not involve the purchase or sale of any financial instruments.

Simulated performance does not represent actual trading. Financial market information is used in the
simulated trading environments, and MFF does its best to mimic real market conditions. To that end, MFF
charges simulated commissions against simulated trades and may apply slippage, delay simulated trade
execution, widen spreads, or take other steps to ensure simulated execution prices closely mimic real market
prices. MFF also may, at its discretion, replicate customers’ simulated trades in real markets through its own
proprietary trading.

You may not engage in prohibited or abusive trading practices in order to take advantage of the technical
limitations of simulated accounts. If you are suspected of engaging in prohibited or abusive trading
practices, MFF may make remedial adjustments to your account settings, including by imposing additional
delay or slippage on your trades. MFF also reserves the right to terminate your account immediately for
suspected abuse or violation of MFF’s rules.

You acknowledge that any trading that you perform through MFF is not real. You also acknowledge that the
funds provided to you for simulated trading are fictitious and that you have no right to possess those
fictitious funds beyond the scope of their use for simulated trading through MFF. In particular, simulated
funds may not be used for any actual trading and you are not entitled to withdraw simulated funds.

Our clients never actually perform any trades on live markets. However, MFF may gather and analyze data
on successful (and unsuccessful) trading strategies in customers’ simulated accounts to develop its own
trading strategies. MFF may also copy or transmit customers’ simulated trades to trade for its own accounts
(outside of the MFF platform) with MFF’s own live funds. For the overwhelming majority of customers,
MFF will not copy trades to live funds. However, MFF reserves the right to use a small number of
customers’ trade strategies and data to make trades from MFF’s own accounts in real markets.

Customer compensation is based on performance (simulated profits) in the simulated accounts. It is MFF’s
obligation to fulfill payouts of amounts due to customers whether or not simulated trades were replicated by
MFF in real markets. MFF makes those payouts from its own funds, which are generated through the
collection of registration fees, its own trading, and other revenue. Since customers’ simulated trades rely on
simulated market feeds, and are not executed against actual counterparties, simulated profits may under- or
over-compensate for the impact, if any, of certain market factors, such as the lack of liquidity.


Covers most of the issues, but MFF needs some concrete specific language around the highlighted txt.
  • #27,613
  • Dec 31, 2023 1:25am Dec 31, 2023 1:25am
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-What is the fun in that?
LOL!
  • #27,614
  • Dec 31, 2023 1:56am Dec 31, 2023 1:56am
Quoting CableJ
You may not engage in prohibited or abusive trading practices in order to take advantage of the technical limitations of simulated accounts. If you are suspected of engaging in prohibited or abusive trading practices, MFF may make remedial adjustments to your account settings...

...Covers most of the issues, but MFF needs some concrete specific language around the highlighted txt.
-Agreed, but I would even include the first sentence, as such interpretations may be subjective in nature. Ideally, we would have additional clarification on remedial adjustments, such as thresholds, duration and repeated abuses etc..

If I am allowed to use my imagination to fantasize about an unrealistic, but ideal outcome, I think that if MFF succeeds in resuming operations, then I would personally like to see more transparency and accountability in this space with regard to the aforementioned. Too many firms make ambiguous claims as justification for account termination and payout rejections without even providing any sort of proof or explanation etc.. This is where scammers like to operate, and this is what I would like to see change.

Personally, I think that the subscriber model may be the only way for that to happen, though. That, or profit caps... or both.
  • #27,615
  • Dec 31, 2023 2:00am Dec 31, 2023 2:00am
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-Agreed, but I would even include the first sentence, as such interpretations may be subjective in nature. Ideally, we would have additional clarification on remedial adjustments, such as thresholds, duration and repeated abuses etc.. If I am allowed to use my imagination to fantasize about an unrealistic, but ideal outcome, I think that if MFF succeeds in resuming operations, then I would personally like to see more transparency and accountability in this space with regard to the aforementioned. Too many firms make ambiguous claims as justification...
I can tell you for a fact, there is no need for a profit cap providing there is volume and traders dont make all on 1 trade. If someone makes 1 mill on 500 trades, there is no reason to cap it.

The question really is where does the 2 phase eval model go from here. Because its saturated, outdated and stale. But its hard to come up with something that people will buy beyond that.
  • #27,616
  • Dec 31, 2023 2:23am Dec 31, 2023 2:23am
Quoting Takisd
The question really is where does the 2 phase eval model go from here. Because its saturated, outdated and stale. But its hard to come up with something that people will buy beyond that.
-I think that people are more interested in a firm that they can trust right now, that is reliable. The 2-phase model is not really the problem, I think. MFF provided that trust. FTMO did at one point, but even they have rumors floating around about threatening traders that are gambling or trading a certain way.

Having a subscription model (and/or profit-cap model), would help to allow these firms to operate more legitimately, without the payout-rejection nonsense and trade-manipulation that we often see these days. Solvency is a real issue, and instead of figuring out ways to remedy the problem in a reasonable and legitimate way, these firms have chosen more nefarious solutions (presumably).

I think that these futures props have the right idea. I am not very keen on having such a tight, trailing draw-down, though, but maybe it can be done without that. Not being able to trade using meta is killer.
  • #27,617
  • Dec 31, 2023 2:54am Dec 31, 2023 2:54am
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-I think that people are more interested in a firm that they can trust right now, that is reliable. The 2-phase model is not really the problem, I think. MFF provided that trust. FTMO did at one point, but even they have rumors floating around about threatening traders that are gambling or trading a certain way. Having a subscription model (and/or profit-cap model), would help to allow these firms to operate more legitimately, without the payout-rejection nonsense and trade-manipulation that we often see these days. Solvency is a real issue,...
I haven't heard much about ftmo lately, but the nda's were always there. The discounts are concerning because ftmo has never done discounts even when MFF ripped their market share to pieces.

I think feb/march somethings will appear that basically kill the ponzi props.
  • #27,618
  • Dec 31, 2023 3:38am Dec 31, 2023 3:38am
Quoting Takisd
I think feb/march somethings will appear that basically kill the ponzi props.
-This statement seems very ambiguous and specific at the same time.
  • #27,619
  • Dec 31, 2023 4:01am Dec 31, 2023 4:01am
I think the basic challenge for these firms is that their product was basically to pretend that they were bona fide prop firms. They pretended to be on the side of the trader ("when you win, we win" BS) and give the false impression that they were copying all/vast majority of trades and placing them into the real market. They pretended they weren't counter parties to trades placed by the trader and also pretended to payout from "market winnings" as opposed to paying from the fees of losing traders.

I genuinely think that if these firms positioned their product as essentially as the UK spread betting firms have done (you are placing "trades" in a simulated environment, with simulated prices etc and when you win, the house loses and vice versa) they would still get a good customer base. Sure, we'd lose all the bottom feeder, sketchy firms but that probably a good thing anyway.
  • #27,620
  • Dec 31, 2023 4:27am Dec 31, 2023 4:27am
Quoting procrude
Hello guys, Do you guys know of any prop firm like my flash funding with low profit targets? 6% Thanks
OFP Funding with no profit target.

Even if you make a $1, you'll get the share.
Trader: Hemen Eghvay
68 traders viewing now