Prop Firm Hub | Page 2439 | 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

  • #48,761
  • May 13, 2025 5:02pm May 13, 2025 5:02pm
Quoting Stoneyrocks
{quote} How likely is it that MFF wins from the OSC and get’s back in business ?
i posted on x, i dont think they should come back. Market changed now it will be too hard. Also no idea of their mess just to get the data in line to do any refund will probably take months.
  • #48,762
  • May 13, 2025 5:04pm May 13, 2025 5:04pm
Quoting Takisd
{quote} The CFTC lost, not only the sanctions but the case. To the best of my knowledge MFF has to now fight the OSC in canada but CFTC is out of the way.
Did they mention about my $600k account
  • #48,763
  • May 13, 2025 5:07pm May 13, 2025 5:07pm
Quoting failinforex
{quote} Did they mention about my $600k account
yes specifically yours they said it was fraudulent and should never have been given to you, no refunds.
  • #48,764
  • May 13, 2025 5:44pm May 13, 2025 5:44pm
https://www.financemagnates.com/fore...-against-cftc/ cats out of the bag now.
  • #48,765
  • May 13, 2025 7:04pm May 13, 2025 7:04pm
Quoting Takisd
{quote} i posted on x, i dont think they should come back. Market changed now it will be too hard. Also no idea of their mess just to get the data in line to do any refund will probably take months.
I would eat the loss and start completely over with them. I bet there are quite a few that share the same sentiment. They were, by far, the best in the industry.
  • #48,766
  • Edited 10:57pm May 13, 2025 9:54pm | Edited 10:57pm
Quoting mrdfx
Ok guys, I finally managed to get under that stupid consistency rule and put in a withdrawal request with BGF. Let's hope I don't have any issues with the payout.
There is a delay at BGF...... i submitted mine on friday no news.... also in discord people mentioning waitng for more than 10 days...... last payout with them took 10 days including weekends...

they have silently changed their payout policy as well so make sure to check if you cover it....

I would highly recommend not to spend a single dime at them anymore....I am sniffing BS from them these days...... I always say when a firm denies my payout based on trading style its surely going under (coz i never break any rule and only excuse they can give is a vague thing like inconsistent risk etc), happened same with myflashfunding, skilledfundedtrader, fundingtraders etc.......
Extreme gut feeling trader
  • #48,767
  • May 13, 2025 11:39pm May 13, 2025 11:39pm
Quoting Takisd
https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9074-25
Criminal charges should be filed against the CFTC officials who did this. I hope the MFF CEO sues them in civil court.
  • #48,768
  • May 14, 2025 2:17am May 14, 2025 2:17am
Quoting EF-Hutton
{quote} Criminal charges should be filed against the CFTC officials who did this. I hope the MFF CEO sues them in civil court.
i dont think its possible.
  • #48,769
  • Edited 7:29am May 14, 2025 6:59am | Edited 7:29am
The question is what the CFTC will do now. If the case is dismissed (the judge doesn't have to implement the recommendations), it doesn't clarify the law and whether MFF were breaking it. Does that mean the CFTC will hit another target?

The recommendations from the Special Master:
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: Testing.jpg Size: 112 KB
  • #48,770
  • May 14, 2025 7:32am May 14, 2025 7:32am
Quoting PropDude1234
The question is what the CFTC will do now. If the case is dismissed (the judge doesn't have to implement the recommendations), it doesn't clarify the law and whether MFF were breaking it. Does that mean the CFTC will hit another target? The recommendations from the Special Master: {image}
they wont do anything until government changes. They have changed their policy internally (for now) and won't do regulation by enforcement. So either congress approves a new law, or only severe fraud will be prosecuted. I think TFT fits that mould along with other scams like skilled funded, all have a common denominator as well in their tech provider. If you take down the tech provider, you eliminate the fraud.
  • #48,771
  • May 14, 2025 7:36am May 14, 2025 7:36am
Quoting Takisd
{quote} they wont do anything until government changes. They have changed their policy internally (for now) and won't do regulation by enforcement. So either congress approves a new law, or only severe fraud will be prosecuted. I think TFT fits that mould along with other scams like skilled funded, all have a common denominator as well in their tech provider. If you take down the tech provider, you eliminate the fraud.
Thanks for your view as always.

Tech provider seems on step removed so less probable to me unless they're actively involved in the fraud, which I doubt.

Quoting Takisd
{quote} i posted on x
Do you share you X profile on here, out of interest?
  • #48,772
  • May 14, 2025 7:45am May 14, 2025 7:45am
Quoting PropDude1234
The question is what the CFTC will do now. If the case is dismissed .../... Does that mean the CFTC will hit another target?
-If the case is dismissed as a result of questionable activity by the CFTC (e.g. misconduct, overreach, failure to follow proper procedure et al.), then it would likely impact their credibility going forward, resulting in substantial backlash, but I don't think that it would stop them from pursuing other firms.

A dismissal on the grounds of misconduct etc., would mean that no legal precedent would be established and the underlying legal questions would remain unanswered, such as whether or not the CFTC can/should regulate overseas firms that offer simulated trading accounts to US customers.

The CFTC would likely refocus enforcement on other firms that it sees as more clear-cut violations of existing laws (e.g. US-based prop firms) where the jurisdiction is clearer, and may even seek legislative support to clarify its authority over these remote prop firms.

The result of the case being dismissed would likely embolden some existing firms into thinking that they are safe and that the CFTC can be beaten. This would be a mistake, obviously. Personally, I can probably think of one or two firms that I would like to see punished to the fullest-extent of the law.
  • #48,773
  • May 14, 2025 7:48am May 14, 2025 7:48am
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-If the case is dismissed as a result of questionable activity by the CFTC (e.g. misconduct, overreach, failure to follow proper procedure et al.), then it would likely impact their credibility going forward, resulting in substantial backlash, but I don't think that it would stop them from pursuing other firms. A dismissal on the grounds of misconduct etc., would mean that no legal precedent would be established and the underlying legal questions would remain unanswered, such as whether or not the CFTC can/should regulate overseas firms that...
everything you said is right, but not under this leadership in the CFTC. They aren't looking for these battles, see: Crypto.

My guess is if the government flips in 3.5 years a lot of past misdeeds of props will appear on the cftc's desk ready for execution.
  • #48,774
  • May 14, 2025 7:50am May 14, 2025 7:50am
Quoting PropDude1234
{quote}Thanks for your view as always. Tech provider seems on step removed so less probable to me unless they're actively involved in the fraud, which I doubt. {quote}Do you share you X profile on here, out of interest?
Tech provider step is resolved by them having a stake in the net equity. So they have a financial interest in participating in fraud. TFT being a very good example of this.
  • #48,775
  • May 14, 2025 9:20am May 14, 2025 9:20am
Quoting Takisd
They aren't looking for these battles, see: Crypto.
-Maybe. I do think that crypto is different. I also think that Acting Chairman Pham is also trying to cover her butt, so a lot of the stuff that she says, although critical against the CFTC, is likely just a way to distance herself from the recently-questionable activity that she inherited. She was originally quoted as saying that the CFTC's reach has no border, and "It should be crystal clear that the CFTC will not stop in its pursuit of non-U.S. entities."

Whether or not she is singing a different tune now, in hopes of keeping her position, I'm not sure. We saw the opposite from Chairman Gary Gensler. Before he was appointed Chairman, he was a big advocate for crypto. That all changed once he became chairman of the CFTC. I believe that a lot of it depends on who is in office. Although Trump may be an advocate for crypto, his opinion regarding simulated trading accounts for US citizens may still be TBD.

I do think that any further action from the CFTC against remote props will probably be done very carefully and by the book as much as possible. So if they do not have strong evidence to go after another firm, then we may not hear anything for a while.
  • #48,776
  • May 14, 2025 9:47am May 14, 2025 9:47am
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-Maybe. I do think that crypto is different. I also think that Acting Chairman Pham is also trying to cover her butt, so a lot of the stuff that she says, although critical against the CFTC, is likely just a way to distance herself from the recently-questionable activity that she inherited. She was originally quoted as saying that the CFTC's reach has no border, and "It should be crystal clear that the CFTC will not stop in its pursuit of non-U.S. entities." Whether or not she is singing a different tune now, in hopes of keeping her position,...
The two things can be right. She can say that there are no borders but she can also say they shouldnt take a ready shoot aim approach or regulate through enforcement (what the hell is that anyway? no law but enforce and pretend there is?).

There are easier targets than MFF out there, I mentioned a few in this thread and have been constantly in pursuit of many others on x. But whatever the next target (if there is one) its likely not to occur under this administration.
  • #48,777
  • May 14, 2025 10:29am May 14, 2025 10:29am
Quoting Takisd
The two things can be right. She can say that there are no borders but she can also say they shouldnt take a ready shoot aim approach or regulate through enforcement (what the hell is that anyway? no law but enforce and pretend there is?).
-To regulate by enforcement can mean different things, but I typically view it as regulators waiting for companies to screw up and then going after them with fines, lawsuits and penalties etc., in lieu of clearly outlining the rules and requirements, up front, and allowing companies the opportunity to comply with the ever-changing laws and regulations in order to avoid said fines, lawsuits and penalties et al..

This was especially problematic when there were no clear guidelines regarding cryptocurrency. Crypto companies were asking for clear, updated regulations that were specific to digital assets. Instead, regulators, such as the SEC, often pursued enforcement actions after products were already in the market, with no clear definitions regarding which cryptocurrencies were securities and which were commodities etc..

Quoting Takisd
There are easier targets than MFF out there, I mentioned a few in this thread and have been constantly in pursuit of many others on x. But whatever the next target (if there is one) its likely not to occur under this administration.
-I do not believe that they will feel overly-inclined to regulate by enforcement at this point. But I also do not think that they will just stop pursuing bad actors. And while cryptocurrency is more widely-accepted under the current administration, only time will tell how these remote prop firms will fare.

You are probably right about not seeing much action against prop firms over the next, few years. I am personally on the fence about it. On the one hand, I do not wish to see a complete take-down of remote prop firms, however, I also do not wish to see prop firms operating unchecked and denying payouts without good cause. Although, whether or not that falls under the purview of the CFTC or SEC is another matter.
  • #48,778
  • May 14, 2025 10:33am May 14, 2025 10:33am
Quoting Nsak3y
{quote}-To regulate by enforcement can mean different things, but I typically view it as regulators waiting for companies to screw up and then going after them with fines, lawsuits and penalties etc., in lieu of clearly outlining the rules and requirements, up front, and allowing companies the opportunity to comply with the ever-changing laws and regulations in order to avoid said fines, lawsuits and penalties et al.. This was especially problematic when there were no clear guidelines regarding cryptocurrency. Crypto companies were asking for clear,...
Agreed, they will be more choosey who they go for.

Easy targets, TFT, Skilled funded trader, FPFX. Funnily enough, they are all connected intimately during the time of fraud.
  • #48,779
  • May 14, 2025 10:47am May 14, 2025 10:47am
I find it unlikely the CFTC would target a foreign entity over someone US-based like TFT.

Assuming MFF is dismissed, they haven't clarified whether the prop model is unlawful in the US. By that I mean the things that apply universally to props, regardless of how legitimate they are e.g. are they an RFED or not?

The time frame for non-US based investigations / prosecutions is only likely to be greater.

If they wrap up a US-based firm then the message is pretty clear to anyone who continues to target the US market when not based in the US.
  • #48,780
  • May 14, 2025 10:53am May 14, 2025 10:53am
Quoting PropDude1234
I find it unlikely the CFTC would target a foreign entity over someone US-based like TFT. Assuming MFF is dismissed, they haven't clarified whether the prop model is unlawful in the US. By that I mean the things that apply universally to props, regardless of how legitimate they are e.g. are they an RFED or not? The time frame for non-US based investigations / prosecutions is only likely to be greater. If they wrap up a US-based firm then the message is pretty clear to anyone who continues to target the US market when not based in the US.
The case is now officially dismissed (about an hour ago) with prejudice. The prejudice ruling could be interpreted as the entire case was bogus or not, its lawyers who need to argue, but the case did have jurisdiction arguments in it. Futures companies are the beneficiary of this more than the CFD companies because it can reinforce an argument that simulation does not fall under jurisdiction of the CFTC. CFD's have other restrictions that could still leave that argument up in the air but it is unlikely the CFTC will pursue this argument for now unless they put forward a blatant fraud case (TFT) and argue jurisdiction in a slam dunk. TFT doesn't have the resources to fight the CFTC now either so timing would be perfect.
88 traders viewing now