Payout denied under a rule from another programme's FAQ
I requested a $520 payout from a One Step 25K account on 6 August. On 11 August it was rejected, declared a "hard breach", and the account was permanently stripped of payout eligibility. I was told to buy a new challenge. The reason given was the Layering Rule — no more than two open positions. I don't dispute the position counts. What I dispute is where that rule lives and what it says. It is not in the One Step Challenge rules article, which lists four requirements: 4% daily loss, 8% overall loss, five trading days, closing positions for evaluation. It is in the Three Step Challenge FAQ — a different programme — where it says exceeding the limit "may result in profit deductions or other penalties." It is not in the Prohibited Trading Strategies article, which lists thirteen practices and is the only page stating that violations may lead to account termination. And it is not in the Terms & Conditions at fundedprofx.com terms, which run to twenty sections of risk disclaimers and contain nothing at all about trading rules, breaches, or payout eligibility. There is a second "Terms of Use" on their help subdomain — it's an unedited template referring to "WEBSITE NAME" at "yourwebsite.com", listing the contact address as "YOUR COMPANY ADDRESS", setting jurisdiction in "Netherlands County, California" (which does not exist), and capping the company's total liability to you at $50. The two payout rules they also cited both carry deduction of the excess as their published consequence. Not rejection of everything. The flagged positions were opened on 29 July, 31 July and 3 August. Every one was accepted by the platform — no warning, no auto-close, no notification. I traded for another two weeks with the account in good standing. Compliance reviewed my activity only after I asked for the money. Their FAQ states there are no hidden rules. Screenshot everything before you pay. I did. This prop is a total scam; don't even think about putting in a single dollar.