Unsubstantiated Claims of Duplicate IP Usage and Non-Responsiveness to Dispute
A trader at Fast Forex Funding was accused of utilizing duplicate IPs, a significant rule violation, but the firm only reset the account rather than implementing a full breach. The rejection of a $9,000 payout, ongoing payment delays cited as due to operational scaling, and lack of response to a dispute notification suggest potential operational insufficiency or non-compliance with ethical standards. Comparison with the trader's successful payout at Infinity Forex Funds for the same strategy raises further questions about the legitimacy of the firm's claims.
- The case presents a concerning pattern of non-responsive conduct and questionable punitive actions by Fast Forex Funding. The comparison with the trader’s positive experience at another prop firm casts doubt on the claims made by Fast Forex Funding. The lack of communication, particularly in not addressing a formal dispute, demonstrates a concerning disregard for transparency and fairness. In accordance with our principles of transparency and integrity, we meticulously document and analyze instances that may raise concerns. This methodical approach ensures we are equipped with a detailed and comprehensive portfolio of evidence. Such diligence prepares us for potential courses of action, including, but not limited to, the submission of whistleblower cases to regulatory authorities. One key entity in this context is the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), which oversees financial market integrity and consumer protection in the financial sector. Our commitment to accumulating substantial evidence aims to fortify the impact of any regulatory submissions we might make, advocating for meaningful change and adherence to industry standards
Issue
Unjustified Declined Payout
Trader's Perspective
- The accusation of IP duplication by Fast Forex Funding was a critical moment, marking a significant accusation that threatened the trust and working relationship between the trader and the firm. The decision by Fast Forex Funding to reset the account instead of terminating it could initially be perceived as a lenient or constructive approach, aiming to maintain the trading relationship. However, this action, paired with the refusal to pay out $9,000 and the ongoing delays in payment attributed to operational scaling issues, begins to sketch a picture of a firm possibly struggling with internal inefficiencies or choosing not to adhere to ethical standards of business conduct.
- The lack of response to a formal dispute, where evidence to support the IP duplication claim was requested, is particularly troubling. It underscores a disregard for procedural fairness and transparency. This non-engagement is antithetical to the principles of fairness and justice in business practices, especially in industries as volatile and trust-dependent as financial trading.
- The successful payout at Infinity Forex Funds for employing the same strategy without issue further complicates the narrative. It suggests that the strategy itself was not inherently flawed or duplicative, challenging the basis of Fast Forex Funding's initial claim and raising questions about the firm's policies, procedures, and the legitimacy of their accusations.
Fast Forex FundingProp Firm
Metrics
