Professional Communication, but Greater Transparency Is Needed
I successfully completed the trading objectives on my funded account and submitted my payout request. During the review, my account was rejected for alleged "Martingale" trading. My trading strategy is based on ATR-driven dynamic stop-losses, multiple timeframes, and predefined setup classifications (A, B, and C). Every trade is evaluated independently before execution. The outcome of the previous trade is never used to determine the position size or risk of the next trade. Throughout the entire account, my maximum drawdown never exceeded **1% of the account balance**, remaining well below the firm's own guidance to keep active (floating) risk comfortably below **2%**. The five trades identified as Martingale involved realized losses ranging from approximately **$3 to $27**, included **different trading instruments**, **both long and short positions**, and trades in both the **same** and **opposite** directions. From my perspective, these were independent trading opportunities rather than a strategy of increasing risk after losses. The company states that Martingale is determined by calculating actual risk using **both position size and stop-loss distance**. At the same time, their published rules clearly state that **using a stop loss is optional** on funded accounts. I requested the actual risk calculations and methodology used to classify my trades, but these calculations were never provided. As a result, I was unable to understand how the rule was applied in my specific case. Based on my experience, the firm's risk management policies lack sufficient transparency and leave significant room for interpretation. Without access to the underlying calculations, it is extremely difficult for traders to understand how their trading behavior will be assessed during a payout review. I respect every firm's right to enforce its own rules. However, when a payout is denied based on an internal risk assessment, I believe traders deserve a clear technical explanation supported by the actual calculations used to reach that decision. If you are considering this firm, I strongly recommend carefully reviewing the trading rules and requesting detailed technical justification for any alleged rule violation before accepting a payout decision. UPDATE: Thank you for your response. My concern has never been that my trades were reviewed. My concern is that although you identified the trade tickets, you did not provide the actual risk calculations that your own policy states were used to classify those trades as Martingale. I repeatedly requested the calculation methodology, including the calculated risk for each trade and how it demonstrated an increase in risk after a losing trade. Those calculations have still not been provided. Without that information, I cannot independently verify or understand the basis of the decision. **Update:** Following my original review, the company continued communicating with me and took the time to explain their risk assessment methodology in much greater detail. Although the final payout decision was not the outcome I had hoped for, I appreciate that they handled the discussion professionally, answered my questions, and acknowledged that my trading was structured and that my intent was genuine. They also offered me a new account so I can trade again with a full understanding of how they apply their Martingale policy. I still believe that some aspects of the risk assessment methodology—particularly the practical application of the Martingale thresholds—would benefit from being explained more clearly in the publicly available trading rules. Having this level of detail available from the beginning would help traders better understand how their risk is assessed and avoid misunderstandings during payout reviews. I appreciate the respectful communication throughout the process and hope the company continues improving the transparency of its trading policies.