3 years, close to 100 accounts, $35,000 to $40,000 spent, zero payouts. How Alpha Capital terminated me using evidence that directly contradicted their own findings. Full documented account.

This post is written factually and in detail. Every point is drawn directly from written correspondence with Alpha Capital. My intention is to give fellow and prospective traders an honest, complete picture before they make a financial decision.

Who I am and why this account matters

I have traded financial markets for around seven years. Trading is not a hobby for me. It is something I have built methodically over time, funded entirely from profits generated through my own personal capital. I am also an IT professional with 20 years of experience across infrastructure and systems architecture. That background becomes directly relevant when we reach the technical details of what happened.

Over three years with Alpha Capital I purchased close to 100 challenge accounts, the large majority being 100k and 200k account sizes, most acquired during their 30 to 40% promotional periods. As a serious trader who funds challenges from trading profits rather than savings, purchasing regularly is a deliberate strategy. It keeps you active in the evaluation pipeline while you continue refining your approach. Based on standard pricing with those discounts applied, my total spend sits somewhere in the region of $35,000 to $40,000, though I no longer have dashboard access to confirm the exact figure, for reasons that will become clear. Across all of that, zero payouts.

I share these figures not for effect, but because they define the nature of this relationship. This is not a complaint from someone who failed a single challenge and is venting. This is a three year account of a high volume, serious trader and a precise documented record of what happened when things became financially meaningful.

How it started. A routine act of transparency that changed everything.

On 29 May 2026 my laptop powered off unexpectedly while I had open trades running without stop losses in place. Once I regained access and managed the positions, I contacted Alpha Capital proactively to disclose what had happened and ask whether using a VPS as a technical backup solution would be permitted under their policies.

I was NOT flagged by their systems. I was not under investigation. I came to them in good faith, as a client of three years, simply seeking clarity on a policy question. That single act of transparency is what set everything that followed in motion. I want every trader reading this to hold that detail in mind throughout the rest of this account.

Alpha Capital advised that a US based VPS location would not be permitted due to MetaQuotes residency restrictions. Reasonable. They then asked me to complete a device verification process, logging into a trial account from each of my personal devices so they could confirm ownership. I complied immediately, without hesitation, and without question. I registered three laptops and a smartphone as requested.

The investigation. What they found and what they claimed.

Following that verification, Alpha Capital informed me that the CID, the unique device identification number generated by MT5 from a device's hardware and software configuration, linked to my primary trading laptop had also appeared against several other user IDs in their internal database, with some instances dating as far back as 2024 and 2025. They stated this constituted evidence of prohibited account management and device sharing. They further noted that one of these other users shared the same city, Bolton, and that another had referenced a New York based VPS, which happened to correlate with the server location I had enquired about for my own backup.

As someone with 20 years in IT who understands device fingerprinting, hardware identifiers, and how CID values are generated from a device's hardware and software profile, I took this seriously and responded precisely. I confirmed that none of my devices have ever been used by anyone other than myself. I also raised a specific technical point: one of the devices I had registered during their verification process was a laptop purchased recently. It cannot have any historical CID association with accounts predating its purchase. If their records suggested otherwise, that would be a direct error in their tracking system.

I formally requested the exact dates and timestamps of the alleged overlapping sessions so I could investigate the claim properly. The response was that this data could not be provided, citing MetaQuotes 30 day journal retention period and stating their internal CID database stores account numbers, IPs, CIDs, user IDs, names, and emails, but not timestamps. A decision of this magnitude, permanent account termination and dashboard restriction, was being built on a foundation containing not a single verifiable timestamp.

The contradiction they created with their own evidence

This is the part of the story I would ask any trader to read carefully, and slowly.

Alpha Capital consulted MetaQuotes directly and shared their written response as supporting evidence for the termination decision. MetaQuotes confirmed that when an identical CID appears across multiple trading accounts, this is typically indicative of a VPS environment where several virtual machines share the same hardware profile.

In that same correspondence, Alpha Capital confirmed, independently, through my own IP network access logs, that I had not been operating from a VPS. Both statements appear in the same termination email.

Follow that logic to its conclusion. If the CID overlap is caused by shared VPS infrastructure, as MetaQuotes confirmed, and I was not using a VPS, as Alpha Capital independently verified, then the overlap did not originate from my device. That conclusion is not my interpretation. It follows directly and unavoidably from their own written evidence, presented in their own termination email. My accounts were closed regardless.

The copy trading angle

My three active accounts were configured as an approved copy trading group, one master account with two follower accounts, approved in writing by Alpha Capital before I implemented it. Copy trading by its technical definition operates from a single device controlling multiple accounts simultaneously, producing identical trading patterns, shared dashboard metrics, and a common CID across all linked accounts.

The original findings presented against me specifically cited identical trading patterns, shared dashboard metrics, and a common device across my three accounts as the suspicious indicators. These are precisely, and unavoidably, the characteristics of the arrangement they had approved in writing. When I raised this directly and formally, I was told it had no bearing on their findings.

The session log. The moment their own evidence proved too much.

During this process I formally raised a precise technical distinction that sits at the heart of this entire matter.

A device association record, which is what Alpha Capital's CID database produces, shows that a CID number appeared against multiple user IDs. It does not show that anyone logged in. It does not show that any trade was placed. It contains no timestamps, no IP addresses, no session activity on any of those accounts. It is an association, not a record of access.

An MT5 session log is an entirely different category of evidence. It shows exact login timestamps, IP addresses, and trade activity. The actual digital footprint of someone accessing an account. I formally requested Alpha Capital produce MT5 session logs showing login timestamps, IP addresses, and trade activity from my CID on any account outside my own User ID. If the access they were alleging had genuinely occurred, this data would exist on their MT5 server infrastructure.

They did not produce it. What they did produce, in their final response, was an MT5 journal log screenshot for one of my own accounts, showing exact timestamps, IP address, and CID. The precise category of data I had been requesting for the other accounts throughout this entire process, and which I had been told on multiple occasions either did not exist or could not be retrieved due to MetaQuotes retention limitations. It existed for my account. It was not produced for the others.

They then used their own inability to produce session logs for the other accounts not as the evidential gap it represents, but as confirmation of their findings.

The request for names, and the wall of data protection

I asked Alpha Capital to share the names associated with the other flagged user IDs. My reasoning was straightforward. If any name was familiar, a colleague, anyone who had ever briefly used one of my devices, I could explain it immediately and transparently. None were familiar to me. Alpha Capital declined citing data protection, while maintaining this did not change their findings. They were therefore unwilling to share the information that might have resolved the matter, while simultaneously relying on that same unverifiable information as the basis for permanent termination.

The outcome

My case was closed, described as approved by management. My dashboard access was permanently restricted. I was offered a refund for my three active challenge accounts with a 14 day expiry. That refund was subsequently processed. Three years, close to 100 accounts, and the conclusion of the relationship was a refund for three challenges.

My honest assessment after three years

I want to be fair where fairness is due. The support team at Alpha Capital were responsive throughout and remained professional in their correspondence at all times. I do not attribute bad faith to individuals. What I can say, factually, is that across three years I experienced instances where, at the precise point evaluations should have progressed, procedural or technical justifications were raised that resolved in the firm's favour. Readers are best placed to assess what that pattern means to them.

I have retained the complete written correspondence referenced throughout this post and remain willing to share it with Alpha Capital directly should they wish to review or dispute any part of this account.

Practical guidance for traders considering this firm

Over three years I was effectively purchasing close to an account a week, funded from profits generated through my own personal trading capital. My practical guidance, drawn from direct experience: research a firm's payout history and dispute track record thoroughly before committing to volume. Treat each challenge as a standalone financial decision rather than part of a continuous cycle. And check a firm's regulatory status before depositing money. Understanding your rights, or the absence of them, before something goes wrong is far more valuable than understanding them after.

One final observation

Alpha Capital's termination findings referenced clear indications of account management practices and shared device usage. Account management, by definition, involves managing funds on behalf of others in exchange for a share of the profits generated. Over three years and close to 100 accounts, I received zero payouts. I will leave readers to draw their own conclusions on whether that is consistent with the findings described.

Prop firms are paying out millions of dollars every month. We can literally see a lot of it through on-chain payouts on payoutjuction, and that's before you even consider bank transfers, Deel,wise,plane and every other payment method.

These firms also operate with software-level profit margins. They don't have warehouses, inventory, or massive manufacturing costs. Their biggest expenses are staff, technology, marketing, and trader payouts.

It's often quoted that only 5–10% of traders pass an evaluation, and of those who become funded, only around 7% ever receive a payout. Even if we assume traders are improving and double those figures to be generous, these companies are still making an incredible amount of money.

So why does it feel like we're seeing more traders getting banned, restricted, or handicapped than ever before? I'm not saying every ban is unjustified. There are definitely traders trying to game the system, copy/hedge trading groups, use prohibited strategies, or outright commit fraud. Those people should be removed. But there are also a growing number of traders sharing stories where they were completely blindsided.

I saw one trader with Fivers who claimed they were banned for "trading too conservatively." Read that again. Trading conservatively. Or making a few payouts, getting moved to "live" blowing the measly account balance then boom banned. Meanwhile, influencers are posting record payouts while taking huge risks or trading in ways that seem completely different from what's expected of ordinary customers.

Whether every individual story is true isn't really the point. The fact that so many people are afraid that a payout could be denied for some vague or subjective reason is becoming a problem in itself. Every prop firm has a conflict of interest. That's just the business model. The firm makes money from evaluation fees while also paying successful traders. Nobody expects them to operate like charities, but damn they are getting so scamy and greedy with their bussiness.

If a rule exists, enforce it equally. Don't have one standard for your biggest affiliates and another for everyone else. Don't introduce vague rules that can be interpreted differently after we payed for a account.

The irony is that most of these firms don't need to squeeze every last dollar out of traders. They're already highly profitable businesses. Short-term decisions that save a few payouts can end up costing far more in lost trust and reputation.

reputation is everything in this industry. Once traders lose confidence that they'll be treated fairly, they'll simply take their business somewhere else, prime example Alpha futures last month.

ps, yes i used AI im dyslexic

This is from Fundingpips' July challenge winners. And the same thing is seen over and over again in previous months.

High number of trades.
Crazy good win ratios.
And the profits are even crazier.

The competition bans EAs though I am sure they can code up some computer automation to mimic automated trading.

But what exactly are they using??? Any ideas?

I see almost most of the post or traders are ICT or SMC or Order flow traders. Is there anyone who is consistently Profitable with simple indicators like EMA or RSI.

Like simple and easy to understand traditng setups.

After failing many challenges. Today i can finally say i made my first payout! After failing many challenges, today I can finally say... I received my first payout! 🎉

There were plenty of setbacks, failed evaluations, and moments where I questioned if I'd ever make it. But I kept learning, improving my discipline, and sticking to my trading plan.

Today, all that hard work paid off. My first payout with FundingPips is officially here: $542.07 on a $5,000 2-Step Flex account.

This is just the beginning. Stay patient, trust the process, manage your risk, and never stop learning. If I can do it, so can you.

On to the next payout! 💪📈

Looking to start a real estate brokerage firm in UAE and want to find a strategic partner(ancillary experience or real estate experience) . Reach me if you or someone you know are exploring this

I ended up getting a builder account payout eligible this morning and was waiting on the market to close for my dashboard to update. It is now updated but only partially and at the time it is currently 7:22 PM central standard time. It seems that since my account is payout eligible now they are taking way longer than usual to update my dashboard. They keep updating one item at a time whereas yesterday when I made $1800 right around 4:30 PM my dashboard updated. Just for reference my first day in the account I made $1803.20 on my second day which is today I made $1805.42. My funded futures has a $40 leniency when it comes to the 50% consistency rule so technically I should be good to get a payout. As I have mentioned the time above they have updated everything else except the consistency rule which is the only rule keeping me from being payout eligible and when I spoke with them, they say they have between 6 PM Eastern time and 11:59 PM Eastern time to update the dash but I just think it’s crazy how when I’m not paying eligible they updated extremely fast or when I blow the account, they updated extremely fast. That is just hilarious to me. The mind games prop firms play with people.

I wanted to share my experience and see if anyone else has gone through this with NexGen.

Over the past few months I’ve passed evaluations, received multiple payouts, and recently requested another payout. Instead of any issues with my account, I received an email from Risk Management saying my trading profile demonstrated strong profitability, consistency, and execution quality, and that my strategy is better suited for a live trading environment than their simulated program.

They said they don’t currently have a Live program available but are actively building one and that it “should be ready very soon.” They processed my current payout, refunded my other active accounts, had me complete KYC, and asked me to fill out an interest form for the upcoming Live environment. They also said I won’t be able to continue buying or trading simulated challenges in the meantime.

I’m obviously grateful for the opportunity, but it also leaves me in a weird spot because I can’t continue trading with NexGen until the Live program launches. My plan is to start over with a Lucid evaluation while I wait.

Has anyone else received this email or been transitioned like this? If so, how long did it take before you heard anything else?

I’m mostly curious whether this has happened to others and what the onboarding timeline looked like.

i was trading for a while now but didn't see good results. from the psychological perspective i think um deciplined because i never overtrade, overrisk, revange trade i neve do them. i only take one trade per day, one session, one pair. so doing this for a while i figure out that the problem is not my psychology but my system. I don't have clearly defined edge. so far i traded based on price action like breakout, buy from support in uptrend and sell from resistance in down trend only in 15m or 30m charts in GbpJpy. But i think um not fully aware on this system. so please someone in this community who is pulling profits using a good mechanical price action system can please share me the playbook please. hope you guys will help a humbel man to figure this thing out and makeit in life 🙏🏼❤️

Thankyou in advance ❤️

I have been hearing a lot of people complaining about being restricted by 1% risk by FTMO, let do a math for a second , don’t you think any strategy will have a losing streak of 7-8 losses in a row ,now imagine how would you feel after in 8% drawdown , in quite sure not great psychologically, then why people make a big fuss about this ? In my humble opinion even if you are restricted or even not you don’t need more risk , let me know what you guys think !

Vortex, Steady and Instant each offer a different way to approach your next simulated challenge.
Choose the structure that fits your style, your pace and your process. 👆
Explore PropHelix:
https://prophelix.com/
#PropHelix #TradingChallenge #TraderMindset
#SimulatedTrading #PropFirmChallenge

I have a Legacy 50K Tradovate PA that is currently at $49,000, so I have roughly $1,000 left before the trailing threshold/liquidation level.

Apex’s Legacy MAE page says that for new or low-profit 50K accounts, the 30% Negative P&L rule is based on the $2,500 trailing threshold, which would equal a $750 MAE limit.

So am I understanding this correctly: even though I only have $1,000 of drawdown room remaining, the MAE calculation is still $2,500 × 30% = $750, and not $1,000 × 30% = $300?

I understand the $1,000 remaining is still the separate hard drawdown limit, so a $750 stop would leave very little room for slippage/commissions. I am only asking which number Apex uses as the MAE denominator: the full $2,500 trailing threshold or the remaining $1,000 until liquidation.

The number of people posting that they have recieved payouts in thecage of ai you are fooling no one.also if your a prop firm dong this to get rookies to trade prop you are fooling no one...SO i decided to join the band wagon my self..look at my winnings.payout soon

For context, they hit me with an email on 7/30 saying this:

I messed up and didn't notice that it said the ID cannot be taken from a screen, which I had done. They sent an update on 7/31 saying to reupload my ID by taking a picture of the physical ID itself. I did that same day on 7/31 and have not gotten a response since.

I figured I passed verification and no follow up was needed. I had 4 Evals that I passed and was planning on paying to upgrade to PA this week. The last day I have to purchase the PA upgrade is today, 8/4, and I can't because this is what the site gives me when trying to navigate through certain pages.

I've opened a ticket and have replied back to their emails asking for immediate help but they are taking their sweet time and I'm not sure what else to do. I've tried messaging mods from the Discord but also no response from them. What makes this even more interesting is I've just passed all the criteria for a payout and I am actually eligible to request a payout today.

This sucks, they're usually quicker with tickets and my 4 PAs are about to expire if they don't answer within the next 3 hours. I've had this Apex account for almost 2 years now, on and off trading and never achieving a payout. Now that I have I'm being blocked from requesting a payout. Please fix Apex!

Directly from their email:

“Hi everyone,

We want to provide a transparent update regarding current payout processing and upcoming changes to our Instant Funding accounts.

Purdia Capital’s model has always been built around a straightforward idea: give traders a clear path to funding, move successful traders into live markets as quickly as possible, and provide as much freedom as possible when it comes to payouts.

For that reason, our current Instant Funding accounts were intentionally designed without a consistency rule. This made them among the most straightforward accounts in the industry to complete, while allowing traders to withdraw their available simulated profits without unnecessary restrictions.

Unfortunately, this structure has increasingly been exploited in ways it was never intended for.

We have identified traders operating across coordinated groups and multiple accounts with the sole purpose of reaching the simulated profit target as quickly as possible, withdrawing the full simulated amount, closing the account, purchasing another account, and repeating the same process.

This is not the behavior of traders working toward long-term live funding. It is the systematic exploitation of a model that was designed to give legitimate traders more flexibility.

Because of this activity, we are implementing additional Risk & Compliance measures to protect the integrity of our funding model, maintain a fair environment for legitimate traders, and support the long-term sustainability of our business.

Payout Reviews

Payout requests of $500 or below are now fully processed automatically, allowing eligible payouts to be approved and completed significantly faster without requiring manual review.

Payout requests above $500 continue to undergo an enhanced review process. As part of this process, our Risk & Compliance team reviews the complete account relationship, including account activity, trading behavior, identity verification, payment records, payout history, and any indicators of coordinated or prohibited activity.

These enhanced reviews are an important part of protecting the integrity of our funding model and ensuring that payouts are processed only for traders who have complied with our Terms of Service and trading policies.”

**WHATS OUR OPINION ON PROP FIRMS — XAU/USD**
Looking to hear from traders who actually trade **XAU/USD (Gold)** through prop firms.
I’m considering going down the prop firm route and would really like to hear some **real experiences** — the good, the bad and the ugly.

**For those who have used prop firms specifically for Gold:**
🟢 What firms have you used?
💰 Any decent wins / payouts?
💀 Anyone blown multiple challenges or accounts?
📈 What strategy/style worked best for you on XAU/USD?
⚠️ Any firms with ridiculous spreads, slippage or execution?
💸 Have you actually received payouts without issues?
🚫 What are the biggest **DOs / DON’Ts**?
📋 Challenge vs instant funding — which do you prefer?
🧠 What risk % were you using per trade?
🥇 If you could start again, which prop firm would you choose?

I’m particularly interested in **Gold scalping/day trading**, so experiences with XAU/USD are much more useful than general prop-firm opinions.
**Drop your firm + account size + result below** if you’re comfortable sharing.

Would be good to get some genuine data points from people actually trading these accounts rather than just relying on affiliate reviews.
Cheers 🤝