Misleading Marketing & Opaque Business Model
I’m genuinely surprised anyone would rate this service above 2 stars. I’m giving it 0 stars solely due to what I consider blatant false advertising. If I had the financial resources, I would pursue legal action, and I’m confident I’d have a strong case. For anyone considering spending money here, please read carefully. While there are several other issues, the misleading marketing is by far the most serious, so I’ll focus on that. They may have recently improved their once-terrible UI, but I’m unsure if they’ve addressed the severe latency that makes scalping nearly impossible. When I used this platform, I encountered numerous problems: exorbitant fees at every stage and an intentionally difficult evaluation phase. Try asking them for their evaluation pass/fail rates. They refuse to publish them. Why? Because the evaluation is their primary revenue stream. The system is designed to make you believe your failures are due to poor trading, when in reality, the structure heavily favors the company. It’s a nearly risk-free business model for the owners, while traders bear all the financial risk. Now, to the core issue: the false advertising. They market accounts “up to $200K,” but the reality is nowhere near that. Your actual usable capital is capped by a strict $12K drawdown limit at any point during the funded period. Exceed it, and your account is terminated. It’s baffling how many traders have been led to believe that a $12K risk limit equals a $200K account. They’re effectively selling you $12K in usable capital while marketing it as $200K, yet the platform still boasts a 4.7/5 rating. How is this acceptable? I anticipate the company will respond by claiming I’m misunderstanding how leveraged accounts work. But let’s be clear: having a $200K “account” with a $12K maximum drawdown limit is not the same as actually having $200K in trading capital. It’s like depositing $100 on an exchange with 100x leverage and claiming you “have” $10,000. You don’t. You have $100, with the ability to control a larger position. Marketing a $12K risk limit as a “$200K funded account” is deeply misleading, and traders deserve transparency, not semantic loopholes. Let’s break down the math. Take their advertised “$100K account,” which effectively gives you roughly $6K in usable capital (with leverage capped at 100x for BTC and lower for altcoins). You pay around $1,000 just to start the evaluation. (Prices may have increased, which only worsens the value proposition.) That $1,000 goes straight to the company before you even trade, and given how few traders pass, it’s essentially guaranteed revenue for them. Even experienced traders with proven track records frequently fail these evaluations due to overly restrictive rules. If you do manage to pass, you’re handed $6K in usable capital disguised as $100K. On top of that, withdrawals are subject to a 10–20% fee on profits starting from $50. The longer you trade, the more fees accumulate. In short, you risk losing your evaluation fee, and even if you succeed, the company still takes a significant cut of your profits. Compare that to simply taking your $1,000 and trading it directly on a reputable exchange. You can choose your drawdown limits, avoid evaluation phases entirely, and withdraw 100% of your profits instantly without hidden fees. It may not sound revolutionary, but once you understand the true cost and structure of this prop firm, direct trading suddenly looks far more transparent and fair. I'd also like to clarify that this isn’t about personal animosity. I’ve followed Mayne and Cred for years across YouTube and Twitter, and I once considered them among the most ethical voices in the crypto trading space. I know their content, their backgrounds, and even personal details they’ve shared publicly. I genuinely respected them. That’s why it’s so disappointing to see this business model. When creators you trust pivot to a structure that feels exploitative, it cuts deep. You would expect that at some point of financial situation (both of the owners were millionaires afaik before starting this business) you would try to do business in an ethical way. Looks like these two don't care about ethics whatsoever. So they fully deserve a rating of 0 stars. And when I asked Mayne about it on his stream - he called me an idiot and kicked off the channel. On top of all that, they are actively trying to remove my truthful review to dishonestly boost their Trustpilot rating. Why don't you respond to my criticism instead of attempting to take it down and hide it from the public? I strongly advise anyone considering this service to read the fine print, understand the real risk limits, and weigh the costs carefully. Until the company offers genuine transparency, I cannot recommend it.