Customer Reviews (4421)

• 

  Iryna Melnyk

  1 month ago

  Account #8087332 — $3,125 payout denied after profitable trading, despite approved KYC

  My experience was honestly pretty frustrating. At first everything seemed fine: challenge fees were accepted, trading was allowed, and KYC on my main account was completed and approved without any issues.

  Here’s what I can confirm:
  – The company accepted multiple challenge fees
  – Trading activity was fully permitted for a long period
  – KYC verification was successfully completed and approved on my primary trading account
  – During active trading, I received no restrictions, warnings, or compliance notifications
  – The profit was generated under normal trading conditions
  – Only after I submitted a payout request did compliance concerns start showing up

  During the dispute, the explanations from the company kept shifting. Their reasoning included (at different stages):
  – UK geolocation/VPN risk signals
  – A shared device or network environment
  – Multiple identities
  – Multiple dashboards/accounts
  – Later, they claimed “multiple KYC profiles” linked to the same device environment

  In later responses, they also clarified things like:
  – The VPN/geolocation part was only treated as a “risk signal,” not a confirmed violation
  – The KYC approval remained valid at the onboarding stage
  – Compliance reviews are often finalized during payout-stage audits
  – The review “was triggered by the payout request”
  – The review process is “independent of account activity” and runs on its own timeline

  At this point, a few facts really matter and should be stated clearly:
  – I had only one account ever KYC-verified under my identity, the one I used for trading
  – All trading activity was carried out by me personally
  – Trading was done from a single device and the same general environment
  – There was no copy trading, no simultaneous trading, no account management, and no coordinated activity with any other trader
  – The second email/account the company referenced was never KYC-verified and was not a funded verified trading profile

  Their final position was that the issue came down to account structure and what they internally interpret as “multiple identities,” plus their risk-policy enforcement tied to device linkage.

  Still, the core problem for me remains the timing and consistency of enforcement. If this account setup was considered a critical compliance violation, then I keep asking:
  – Why were payments continuously accepted?
  – Why was KYC approved?
  – Why was trading allowed to continue fully?
  – Why were there no warnings or limitations before I reached profitability and payout eligibility?

  Another concern is that the platform rules don’t seem to contain a direct, explicit prohibition like “a user may not register more than one account/email that belongs to themselves” in the simple way some other prop firms describe. Instead, this interpretation appears to have been applied broadly during the payout review after the trading was already completed.

  To be clear, it gives the impression of delayed or retrospective enforcement rather than an upfront restriction that should have been applied during onboarding or active trading.

  Throughout the dispute, the company focused mostly on justifying the payout denial, not on resolving the inconsistencies raised. Even after multiple requests, they didn’t provide a technical basis that included a detailed audit timeline, timestamps, or specific detection details about when they allegedly identified the problem and why no enforcement action happened earlier—during onboarding, during KYC approval, or while trading was actively taking place.

  Also, I want to mention that whenever I posted reviews about this situation, the company flagged them on Trustpilot as “not based on a genuine experience,” so they were temporarily removed from public view. In each case, I provided supporting documentation to Trustpilot showing my trading relationship and account activity with Instant Funding, and the reviews were reinstated after Trustpilot’s verification.

  For transparency, I will publish a detailed YouTube video covering the full timeline, including the complete email correspondence and all responses from the dispute process.

  Right now, because there wasn’t a transparent resolution and because the company didn’t share detailed supporting evidence, I’m reviewing additional consumer and payment-related dispute options available to me. I also plan to keep documenting how this case develops.

  I’m not posting this to make emotional accusations. I’m sharing a factual, documented account of how the case was handled—from onboarding to the payout denial—based on the information I have.

• 

  Rohit Mehta

  1 month ago

  I had a very bad experience with this property firm. Frankly, things didn’t go as promised, and the whole process felt quite unprofessional. I wouldn’t recommend them—waste of time and money.

• 

  Youssef El Amrani

  1 month ago

  Honestly, I have never come across a more fraudulent company in my life. I strongly advise everyone not to subscribe. If I were able to attach images here, I would have sent them immediately, because the proof is very clear.

  About three months ago, I created an account, and then—without warning—it started dropping every day until I basically lost it. After that, I tried again by buying other accounts, but I lost those as well. The company never gave me a real explanation or any solid support, just silence.

  What really got me is what happened once I started making profits. After I bought an account and the results finally looked good, they suddenly switched back to the old account and claimed I had traded against it. Then they “showed” me two trades and said those were the breakout trades. However, those two trades weren’t opened and closed at the same time. One was a 1-lot position, and the other was only 0.12 lot. So, I have to ask: is this what you call a reverse trade? To me, it feels like a straight-up insult to our intelligence.

  Please, don’t waste your time with this company. If I could provide the evidence here, I would—but unfortunately, I can’t upload the screenshots.

• 

  Olha Petrenko

  2 months ago

  Account #8087332 — My $3,125 payout was denied despite profitable trading.

  To be fair, I started well with Instant Funding. I completed KYC without delays, then traded normally and was allowed to keep going with no restrictions. Everything stayed fine right up until I requested a payout.

  The problem only really began after that. Suddenly, support started mentioning a set of “compliance concerns,” and the list kept changing:
  – UK geolocation / VPN,
  – shared Computer ID,
  – multiple identities,
  – even multiple verified dashboards.

  In later messages, Instant Funding tried to smooth it out a bit. They said the VPN/geolocation thing was only a “risk signal,” that my KYC was still valid, and that traders are basically “good to proceed” unless they’re contacted otherwise.

  But my account was already blocked on 27.04.2026. Since then, the responses I’ve gotten feel disconnected from what’s actually happening with the account status. It’s like they’re answering questions that don’t match my case.

  What bothers me most is the timing. The sequence looks like this:
  – several payments were accepted,
  – KYC got approved,
  – trading continued as usual,
  – profits were generated,
  – and only after that enforcement came.

  Now they say comprehensive compliance reviews are mainly done at payout stage. That explanation doesn’t fully sit right with me, because it suggests enforcement can be delayed and then applied retroactively, with unclear restrictions and inconsistent communication.

  One more thing: I don’t see any reason to request my email be published again. The company already has the necessary details linked to account #8087332 and my verified profile.

  At the moment, there’s also no real solution or clear payout decision provided—just denials and shifting explanations.

  Important note about repeated review moderation:

  Every time I publish a review about Instant Funding, the company flags it as “not based on a genuine experience.” That triggers Trustpilot’s verification process, and the review gets taken offline temporarily.

  In each case, I submitted supporting documentation showing my trading activity with Instant Funding. After Trustpilot reassessed it, the reviews were restored.

  So, to clarify: the company consistently challenges the content, the review goes through Trustpilot verification again and again, and it only comes back after evidence review.

  I’m adding this note to make it clear the review is based on a real trading experience and has been independently verified through Trustpilot moderation and evidence checks.

• 

  Miguel Romero

  2 months ago

  Quería compartir mi experiencia para que el resto de la comunidad de trading tenga una visión lo más transparente posible. Tras comprar casi 40 cuentas con Instant Funding y, aun así, intentar resolver disputas anteriores de buena fe, me he topado con un patrón bastante preocupante, sobre todo durante la fase de sus cuentas “Micro”.

  Hace poco me concedieron una cuenta de 10K como gesto de buena voluntad. Pues bien: la cuenta se cerró el primer día. En mi opinión, aquello fue prácticamente una “trampa automatizada”. Abrí una operación 18 minutos antes de un evento de noticias y luego la cerré manualmente 4 minutos y 11 segundos antes del lanzamiento, justo para evitar la volatilidad y proteger el capital.

  A pesar de esa gestión del riesgo, su sistema me marcó un “Hard Breach”. ¿El motivo? Según ellos, me pasé por solo 49 segundos de su margen de 5 minutos antes de la noticia. Para que se entienda: no hablamos de un error grande ni de una actitud temeraria, sino de un desfase mínimo.

  Puntos a tener en cuenta:
  – Automatización agresiva: usan reglas rígidas y bastante binarias. No distinguen entre un trader que está “jugando” o uno que sale a tiempo por seguridad.
  – Comunicación poco consistente: al principio me avisaron de que se descontarían beneficios, pero más tarde aplicaron una liquidación total de la cuenta. La verdad, confunde bastante.
  – Reglas con enfoque “depredador”: claro que las normas son necesarias, pero usar una diferencia de 49 segundos para cancelar a un cliente que está intentando hacerlo bien se siente más a cazar fallos que a gestionar riesgo.

  Actualicé mi reseña anterior a 3 estrellas por si esto era el inicio de un capítulo nuevo de transparencia, pero ahora la bajo a 2. Si priorizan “trampas” automáticas antes que el contexto profesional y la fidelidad del trader, es un entorno complicado para inversores serios.

  Mi recomendación es clara: operad con extremo cuidado alrededor de sus ventanas de noticias. No dan segundas oportunidades, ni siquiera por detalles técnicos pequeños.

• 

  Youssef El Mansouri

  2 months ago

  I’d like to share my experience with the IF1 account. I purchased two accounts at 20,000 each, and neither one ever worked properly. After that, I also bought a 50,000 account, but again the results were the same—everything was unsuccessful.

  For the trades, I used the same methods throughout, so I don’t understand why things kept failing. Later on, I bought another 50,000 account and managed to withdraw funds from it, so I thought maybe it would finally go in a better direction. But then I purchased a further 50,000 account, opened three trades, and right after that my account was suspended on the claim of “reverse trading.”

  Honestly, I challenge the company to show me the identity of the person they say I was trading against on that account. Either you refund my balance, and I’ll stop dealing with you permanently, or I’ll make this public. To me, this looks very clearly like a scam.

• 

  Amina Okafor

  2 months ago

  Big thanks to Uday for the quick help today! He made it really easy to understand the account requirements, and he answered all my questions instantly. Honestly, the whole process felt smooth from start to finish, and I didn’t have to wait around at all. I’d definitely recommend Instant Funding if you’re looking for solid customer service.

• 

  Ankit Jain

  2 months ago

  Worst prop firm I’ve come across. The experience was really disappointing overall—nothing felt smooth or professional. I honestly wouldn’t recommend it to anyone, especially if you’re expecting decent support and clear communication.

• 

  James Peterson

  2 months ago

  I’ve gone through Instant Funding 4 times, and it’s been a bit of a mess. Two of those times I failed—fully on me—so I’m not trying to dodge accountability. The other two are where the real issues started. They kept putting “red flags” on my account even though their page says you can use multiple trading strategies, including hedging (which I did).

  What happened next is basically the problem: they cancelled my account before I ever hit their max drawdown, even though I was still showing a profit. On one micro account (around $330), I was up while staying under the rules, and I know I wasn’t anywhere near blowing it. The other account was worse on the P&L—down about $858.89 at the time—but I still felt like the cancellation was way too early and not consistent with what they advertise.

  It’s also confusing because their rules, especially the 15%–20% type limits, feel like they’re designed to stop you from letting winners run. I’m more of a swing trader, so low consistency requirements and rigid daily constraints honestly prevent you from having a good day. I ended up thinking: if I’m just going to keep wasting money on prop firms anyway, I might as well trade my own account. If I want exposure, I can trade QQQ or gold instead and get paid through dividends/ETFs like SLV/PSLV, or even use ZSL—at least that’s real risk management and not someone else’s rulebook.

  To be clear, I’m not saying I never make mistakes. But in my case I felt forced to close trades right when price finally moved—because I would have exceeded their consistency rule for the day. That’s not “prop trading” to me. It’s restriction after restriction, and when you’re trying to manage risk and reward properly, they cut you off anyway.

  Another point: they didn’t honor what I paid for. The accounts I’m talking about weren’t “failed”—they were cancelled. Thankfully, my bank called me yesterday to check in (seriously, my bank does that) and I told them about what happened. I was advised to dispute the charges. I also screenshot everything and I even use OBS to stream and record my trades, so I have proof and backing for the dispute.

  Bottom line: I don’t recommend Instant Funding. Don’t trade with them if you’re expecting consistency and transparency, because it feels like they’ll find a way to take your money one way or another. Have a blessed day—and no wonder you don’t see many YouTubers really talking about them.

• 

  Youssef Cherif

  2 months ago

  I’m honestly very disappointed with InstantFunding. I previously traded a 100k account with them, and back then I was pretty satisfied. The 3% minimum withdrawal rule matched my strategy well, so I felt confident.

  So I decided to upgrade and purchase a 200k account (No. 8095714).

  But soon after I started trading, I noticed an **unannounced** change. The minimum withdrawal requirement went up from 3% to 5%. And to be clear, nobody told me this before I made the purchase.

  The effect on my plan was pretty brutal:

  * The first two days went well, and I managed to build a solid profit.
  * Under the 3% target (for example, a $6,000 payout goal), I was already about 50% through.
  * Then I learned the real target was actually $10,000 (5%), and it created instant frustration and a lot of psychological pressure.
  * Because of that, I changed my trading approach just to reach the higher number—and unfortunately I blew the account three days later.

  Changing a core rule like this without any warning really feels unfair. It raises transparency concerns and honestly damages the firm’s credibility. I chose them even after seeing other negative reviews, because I thought they looked professional—but in my case, I was wrong. I’m still waiting for a fair resolution. Traders, please be careful: the payout targets might shift without telling you.
  Account Number: 8095714

  Updated Review:
  I’m updating my previous review after a more detailed discussion with the InstantFunding support team.

  After they reviewed my account (#8095714), the team explained that the 5% payout rule had actually been put in place in March, before my May purchase. They also provided a clear timeline, and I appreciate that—at least it helps correct my understanding of what was true at the time of my purchase.

  As for the 1% breach on XAGUSD, I still feel the margin is extremely tight (0.02%). Still, the firm gave a solid explanation of their “Trade Idea” policy and how slippage is included in their risk management.

  Overall, I want to thank the support team for being professional and for communicating in a transparent way. It’s not that common to see a company take time to explain details properly. I’m considering trading with them again soon.

• 

  Maksym Kovalenko

  2 months ago

  Instant Funding denied my $3,125 payout right after I became profitable.

  Their final explanation was that two accounts registered under different emails were accessed from the same device environment. But both accounts were mine. I first signed up with a secondary email purely for testing, and later I created a main, verified account using my real details.

  At the time, there wasn’t any clear, explicit rule that said having multiple accounts under different emails is prohibited. Some prop firms don’t play games—they list such restrictions clearly and block duplicate registrations immediately. Instant Funding, though, didn’t.

  What they did instead:
  – accepted multiple deposits from me
  – let me buy a lot of challenges
  – approved my KYC
  – allowed trading with no visible restrictions

  Only once I generated profit and requested a payout did the “violations” suddenly become a problem.

  They also claimed my KYC results showed a UK geolocation. I’ve never been to the UK. During KYC, verification is done via a mobile phone scan, so it’s very possible a VPN was enabled on my phone at that moment. My trading PC itself does not use a VPN.

  If this was truly a serious compliance issue, the company should have acted earlier. For example, they could have:
  – contacted me immediately
  – asked for clarification
  – or blocked or suspended the account before allowing continued purchases and trading

  But everything was approved up until the payout stage.

  Timeline-wise: on 23.04.2026 my $3,125 payout was initially approved and they requested additional location verification. Then on 27.04.2026 my account was terminated.

  To me, this looks like inconsistent enforcement of unclear rules—where the “real” concerns only show up after a trader finally performs and reaches profitability.

  So yes, I think traders should evaluate this risk carefully before choosing this firm.

  Also, I want to address how the rules were interpreted to justify the termination.

  After reading through your published Trading Rules and Terms & Conditions, I couldn’t find any clear clause that explicitly forbids one individual from creating more than one account using different email addresses. In fact, your own materials state that traders may hold multiple accounts.

  In my case, it seems the decision came from a broad interpretation around “different identities” and a “shared device environment,” even though:
  – both accounts were under my control
  – I personally conducted all trading
  – there was no simultaneous trading
  – no copy trading or coordinated activity

  To make it worse, your Terms & Conditions say Instant Funding can determine prohibited behavior “at its own discretion.” That wording basically creates a situation where broadly interpreted rules can be applied retroactively, once a trader becomes profitable.

  If my account setup or device configuration truly was a serious compliance violation, fair enforcement would have required:
  – an immediate restriction
  – a clarification request
  – or a suspension before continued purchases and trading were allowed

  Instead, the sequence was:
  – multiple payments were accepted
  – KYC verification was approved
  – trading continued normally until payout

  Overall, this creates the impression of inconsistent enforcement rather than transparent compliance control.

  One-Phase Micro 25000 #8087332

• 

  María Rodríguez

  2 months ago

  Headline: Update: Partial solution after back-and-forth with support (Honest Feedback)

  Review Update (May 2026):
  After my earlier post, the support team at Instant Funding contacted me to review the situation and discuss the cases tied to Accounts #8094905 and #8096156.

  To be clear, I’m still not happy about what happened. I lost a $50k Funded account due to a reported $12 slippage difference, and my $25k account also saw a profit deduction based on their “Lot Stacking” rule. It’s frustrating, because from the trader’s side, those details don’t always feel transparent.

  That said, I have to acknowledge the improvement on their side.

  The Resolution:
  They admitted there was some administrative confusion in the way they communicated the outcome, and they offered a 10K IF Micro Live Account as a goodwill gesture. Obviously, this doesn’t fully compensate the roughly $75,000 equity that was effectively lost, but I do see this as a first step to rebuild trust.

  My Stance:
  For now, I’m dialing back my previous “scam” comments since they actually made the effort to manually look into it and try to bridge the gap. I appreciate that they listened to someone who has purchased around 40 accounts.

  I’ll still be watching the new account closely, especially the execution quality and overall stability—because that’s the part that matters most long-term.

  I hope this becomes a more transparent chapter, and that funded traders get better protection when it comes to market slippage. For the moment, I’m giving them a chance to prove they can be reliable.

  New Rating: 3/5 (Adjusted from 1/5, based on the effort to resolve the issue).

• 

  Natalia Kovalenko

  2 months ago

  This was my first time working with a prop trading firm, so I went in kind of cautious. I had seen a few negative reviews, but the way the company replied in those threads looked fairly calm and reasonable, so I decided to test it myself.

  To start, I opened an account using a secondary email, just to check how the platform and onboarding worked. After that, I created the main account with my real information and completed the KYC verification successfully.

  Next, I funded several challenges—first one for $60k, and later another for $20k. During the process, I also got some penalties, and I’ll be honest: I accepted them. I was still getting used to their rules, daily limits, and overall conditions, so nothing here felt completely unfair at the time.

  In total, I ended up generating a little over $3,500 profit, and my share was around $3,200.

  Also, all trading was done лично by me—
  – from one location
  – on one device
  – with no simultaneous trading across accounts
  – no copy trading and no duplicated trades

  So from my side, there was no harm to the firm and no obvious breach of their trading requirements.

  The problem came when I requested a payout. My account was terminated, and the reason kept changing. At first it was a location-related issue, then they mentioned a “Shared Computer ID,” and later it turned into claims about multiple identities. I never received clear evidence—just different explanations over time.

  After their final refusal, I filed complaints on several platforms. Only after that did they offer a refund for the last challenge.

  Overall, I don’t think this is a fair outcome. They took my payments over time, approved my KYC, and allowed me to trade and generate results. The questions only started after profits were made.

  This whole situation cost me a lot of time, effort, and the earnings I reasonably expected.

  If you’re considering a prop firm like this, please think carefully about the withdrawal risk before committing.
  One-Phase Micro 25000 #8087332

• 

  Ahmed Mansour

  2 months ago

  Honestly, this is by far one of the worst prop firms I’ve come across. The spread is just crazy—seriously, it’s not even close to “normal.” I’d strongly advise you to stay away. In my case, it ended up being a waste of money and time, and it made the whole challenge harder than it should be.

  Update: they contacted me afterward and basically dismissed the spread problem completely, along with the fact that the service quality is extremely low. Then they started talking to me about their drawdown rules like that would fix everything. To be honest, it felt ridiculous. It’s honestly a shame for the trading industry—and for prop firms in general—that Instant Funding is operating like this.

• 

  Andrew Mitchell

  2 months ago

  IF1 Accounts = Failure No Matter What

  A company that shows around 25% one-star reviews, while also racking up lots of short, generic five-star reviews at the same time, really should make consumers pause.
  It’s not only the star rating itself—it’s the quality and consistency behind the feedback.

  A lot of the positive reviews are extremely brief and vague. They usually mention nothing more than customer service interactions. Meanwhile, the negative reviews tend to go into specifics: payouts, slippage, execution quality, and even disputes over the consistency rules.

  Trustpilot might not be writing these reviews for them, but the platform still gives companies a place to look overwhelmingly “trusted,” even when serious complaints are buried under a wall of generic praise.
  And yeah, the pattern is obvious—5 stars sitting on the front page when it’s been mostly 1-star posts all week.

  That’s concerning.

  Update 3:
  Even the company’s response below doesn’t actually address the core problem. During the first week of May, multiple traders told similar stories about slippage, execution quality, and payout disqualifications.

  Update 2:
  Instant Funding IO still refuses to correct my trading IDs, even after I asked more than once.

  Update 1:
  Here was the company’s response to me:

  “What happened to you is really a sad and heartbreaking thing, but it is as per the normal market behavior and no anomaly happened. If your total profit is just $10-$20 more the consistency would have been under 15% making you eligible for the payout.”

  That response pretty much sums it up.

  ORIGINAL ISSUE:

  Instant Funding IO markets IF1 accounts as being ideal for:
  “day traders focused on news events and sharp intraday moves.”

  But then traders get penalized when volatility creates bigger winning trades.

  To me, that’s contradictory.

  If someone executes well during volatility and catches a legitimate move, they can still be denied payout eligibility because the consistency formula punishes concentrated profits—even when the account is overall profitable and risk is controlled.

  My results:

  – 50k IF1 account
  – 2.20% net profit
  – 27 separate trade ideas
  – 77% win rate on buys
  – 75% win rate on sells
  – 3.1 profit factor
  – Result: zero payout

  This isn’t about slander. It’s about transparency and the way the framework is designed.

  You can’t:

  1. Encourage volatility trading
  2. Refuse to disclose the liquidity/execution structure
  3. Penalize volatility-driven profits

  …and still call the environment “trader-aligned.”

  I also raised concerns about take-profit execution discrepancies, and those adjustments were never made or properly addressed.

  If volatility-based outcomes are structurally incompatible with payout eligibility—even when that volatility is part of what they market—then the consistency framework may be punishing legitimate edge realization instead of identifying reckless trading.

  I’ll never use this firm again.

  Account 141556

• 

  Олексій Коваль

  2 months ago

  I honestly find this company pretty unprofessional.

  I didn’t receive a single warning or reminder email about inactivity. Then, without any notice whatsoever, my account was blocked on the very same day. That felt extremely disappointing, to be honest.

  From what I’ve seen in my experience, proprietary trading firms don’t usually handle things this way. Instead of communicating properly, they just wait in silence and expect a client to make a mistake. It’s not a great approach.

  I consider this unfair and clearly below basic customer support standards. At minimum, there should be a clear and consistent notification system—maybe something like a reminder after 7 days of inactivity, and then another one shortly after, before taking action.

  Overall, I strongly recommend the company review their communication processes and improve how they notify clients.

• 

  Anastasiya Kovalchuk

  2 months ago

  Instant Funding denied my $3,125 withdrawal — device-sharing claim after a successful trade

  I’m writing this review to share what happened with Instant Funding, because the whole situation felt pretty inconsistent.

  I traded on account #8087332 and earned $3,125. I followed their rules, there was no drawdown breach, and I didn’t engage in anything risky.

  What I can tell you step by step:

  – I submitted a payout request
  – Right after that, they asked me to confirm my location
  – They said my IP looked like the UK, but I’m based in Ukraine and I’ve never been to the UK
  – After that, the explanation changed

  In the end, they terminated my account. Not because of VPN/location directly, but because of a “Shared Computer ID” allegedly linked to multiple accounts created under different identities.

  Key points from my side:

  – I personally created only two accounts: Nov 2025 and Feb 2026
  – KYC on my active account was completed and approved
  – The payout request was processed on their side (I mean, they accepted the payment flow without errors)
  – Trading itself was allowed and I could place orders normally
  – There was no simultaneous trading
  – No copy trading
  – No coordination

  Their statement is that my device was connected to other accounts, but they didn’t provide any proof that I actually operated those other accounts under other names.

  To be honest, this decision seems to rely only on a technical device match, rather than on actual trading behavior or misuse.

  My main concern is simple: if this was a serious violation, why did they:

  – accept payment
  – approve KYC
  – let me trade normally

  …and only raise the issue after I requested a profitable payout?

  At this point, my withdrawal was refused and the account was closed.

  Update / request

  I’d like them to clarify and provide supporting evidence for the claims they listed.

  1) VPN / Location
  They mentioned “possible VPN use,” but that’s still just an assumption. I’m asking for concrete evidence, like:

  – IP logs
  – timestamps
  – technical indicators that show location manipulation

  Also, if my activity was truly flagged as UK-based, please explain why my Ukrainian KYC documents were approved without problems and why trading continued afterward.

  2) Multiple Accounts
  They now say the second account was also mine. That conflicts with their earlier message that the accounts were under different identities.

  So please clarify:

  – what exact rule forbids having two accounts under the same person
  – why it wasn’t flagged at payment time or during account creation
  – why trading was allowed to continue if it was really a serious violation

  3) Timing of the issue
  All concerns (VPN/location, device, multiple accounts) came up only after a successful withdrawal request.

  If these were critical breaches, they should have been detected:

  – before accepting payment
  – before KYC approval
  – before allowing any trading activity

  Right now, it looks like the decision was based on automated technical flags and assumptions, not proven misuse or actual violations during trading.

• 

  Thabo Mokoena

  2 months ago

  Honestly, these firms come off as scammers. I’ve seen way too many red flags and their promises never match up with what actually happens. It’s frustrating, because they act confident at first, but then things fall apart quickly. I’d be really careful and think twice before dealing with them.

• 

  Habimana Eric

  2 months ago

  All IF Team, especially you, Lewis, John (community manager), Piya, Uday, Namuh, and everyone else—thank you. You showed real professionalism and also a kind kind of transparency from the start.

  I just want to say thank you for giving me this great opportunity. I’ll definitely come back, and I’ll keep updating new people so they can understand how you care for clients. When a full client issue comes up, you don’t just ignore it—you clarify things clearly.

  IF COMPANY ON THE TOP. Everyone needs to know this company has no issue staying focused on their goals. Yes, maybe there can be mistakes sometimes even on their side, but I can assure you the team is always ready to support anyone.

  Thanks again, big man Lewis, CEO.

• 

  Suresh Gurung

  2 months ago

  Hi Support Team, sorry to message you from here, but I feel like I wasn’t properly heard in my emails. The replies were really slow, and the communication has taken much longer than expected.

  Trading account: 140919
  Ticket ID: 256675

  I’ve been using their instant funding for a while now, and honestly they have one of the best challenge programs. However, I’m a small fund trader (under 1,000 USD), and I’m currently on a 10K micro account. Recently, my account was marked as violated because it supposedly hit the daily drawdown limit—but that didn’t happen.

  I understand you might tell me to have patience and that emails are usually answered within 24–48 hours. In my case, that hasn’t been true. It’s still not resolved.

  Please look into this properly and help me get this issue sorted out.

• 

  Amit Sharma

  2 months ago

  Please don’t buy this service. In short, they don’t let you use a VPS, even though the rule isn’t clearly shown where it should be. The restrictions are mostly hidden—there’s a single line under the Terms and Conditions, but it’s not visible in the FAQ, so you won’t know until after.

  Also, without using a VPS and EA, you just can’t make enough profit. I was expecting at least decent results, but the whole setup becomes pointless if you’re forced to run without those tools. Save your money and go somewhere else.

Cancel reply

12345