Multiple Prop Firms Hit by Trustpilot Review-Integrity Warnings

Every week, Prop Firm Evidence reviews recent trader complaints, company responses, review-platform warnings, payout disputes and other public signals across the prop-firm industry.

We do not assume that a negative review proves wrongdoing.

Our focus is simple:

What happened? What evidence exists? What does the company say? And what should traders know before spending their money?

THE BIG STORY

Multiple Prop Firms Hit by Trustpilot Review-Integrity Warnings

[Evidence: Trustpilot breach-of-guidelines notices | Captured: 14 August 2026 | Status: Platform-confirmed warning]

This week, Prop Firm Evidence identified multiple prop firms whose Trustpilot profiles displayed a warning stating that their ratings were unavailable because of a breach of Trustpilot’s guidelines.

Trustpilot also stated on the affected profiles that it had removed a number of fake reviews.

Among the firms identified in our monitoring were:

E8 Markets

The Trading Pit

Top One Trader

ThinkCapital

Alpha Capital Group

AudaCity Capital

BEM Funding

Blueberry Funded

BrightFunded

Crypto Fund Trader

Funded Trading Plus

GoatFundedTrader

Finotive Funding

For Traders

Why this matters

A review-platform warning does not mean every positive review is fake.

It also does not establish that a prop firm has mistreated traders.

But it does raise an important consumer-protection question:

How much weight should traders place on headline review scores when choosing a prop firm?

Prop Firm Evidence position

Ratings should be treated as one piece of evidence — not proof of quality or safety.

Before buying an account, traders should also examine:

rules, payout policies, complaint patterns, company responses, platform warnings and independently documented cases.

Status

INDUSTRY-WIDE HIGH-PRIORITY SIGNAL

INCIDENT OF THE WEEK

Lucid Trading Traders Report Problems Following Rithmic / TradeSea Disruption

[Company: Lucid Trading | Period: approximately 12–14 August 2026 | Evidence: Multiple independent trader reports | Status: Technical incident + unresolved individual complaints]

Several Lucid Trading users reported problems associated with a Rithmic/TradeSea technical disruption.

The complaints describe traders allegedly being unable to close positions, unexpected executions, accounts being breached and difficulties obtaining corrections afterward.

Case example

[Reviewer: Thomas Hansson | Country: Sweden | Posted: 14 August 2026, approximately 2 hours before capture | Platform: Trustpilot]

The reviewer alleged that a Rithmic outage prevented him from closing a trade and resulted in the loss of his account.

He further claimed Lucid had indicated affected accounts would be reinstated but that his account had not yet been restored several days later.

Second case

[Reviewer: Bruno Vaz | Country: Brazil | Posted: approximately 13 August 2026 | Support Ticket stated: #123797354]

The reviewer said a position was affected by the Rithmic/TradeSea outage.

He reported that his leader account showed approximately:

-$203.24

while three follower accounts trading the same activity reportedly showed approximately:

+$27 each.

He also stated that the account subsequently displayed:

“Only liquidation trades allowed.”

The reviewer said he had been waiting two days for further support when the review was captured.

Third case

[Reviewer: Patrick Vives | Country: UAE | Posted/updated: approximately 13 August 2026]

The reviewer alleged that a “ghost trade” could not be closed during the Rithmic outage and said this resulted in an account breach.

He stated that approximately 15 days of trading work had been lost.

What we know

There is evidence that an infrastructure/order-execution incident occurred.

What we do NOT yet know

Prop Firm Evidence has not established that every account loss claimed by traders resulted directly from the outage.

We also have not established whether all affected accounts should have been reinstated under Lucid’s policies.

Questions for Lucid Trading

1. How many accounts were affected?
2. How many were restored?
3. What evidence is required from traders seeking reinstatement?
4. How are losses caused by confirmed infrastructure problems distinguished from normal trading losses?
5. Are any affected cases still unresolved?

Status

ACTIVE INVESTIGATION

CASE OF THE WEEK

E8 Markets Trader Alleges $94,200 in Outstanding Payout Requests

[Company: E8 Markets | Reviewer: Eze Kingsley Ohaji | Review status: Verified | Platform: Trustpilot | Captured: 14 August 2026]

A Trustpilot reviewer labelled Verified alleged that two payout requests remained unpaid or had been denied.

Amounts reported

First payout request: $40,000

Second payout request: $54,200

Total alleged amount

$94,200

This is the largest individual payout dispute identified in this week’s review sample.

What we know

A review making the allegation was publicly displayed and marked Verified when Prop Firm Evidence captured the evidence.

What we do NOT know

A Verified Trustpilot review does not prove that the company legally owes the amount claimed.

Prop Firm Evidence has not yet reviewed:

the trading account, payout requests, account agreement, correspondence, risk-review evidence or reason for rejection.

We therefore do not state that E8 owes the trader $94,200.

Questions for E8 Markets

1. Did the two payout requests exist?
2. Were they approved, rejected or placed under review?
3. What exact rule or compliance issue affected them?
4. Was account-specific evidence supplied to the trader?
5. Is an appeal available?

Status

HIGH-PRIORITY OPEN CASE

No finding of wrongdoing has been made.

OTHER CASES ON OUR RADAR

The Trading Pit — Large Payout Disputes

[Trustpilot status: Breach-of-guidelines warning | Fake reviews removed by Trustpilot | Captured: August 2026]

One trader alleged a $12,720 payout was rejected after the firm classified the trading as non-independent.

[Reviewer: Gia Luu | Account stated: 504069528 | Amount: $12,720 | Posted: July 2026]

The trader said video analysis and handwritten trading journals were submitted as evidence of independent manual trading.

The Trading Pit responded that it had reviewed the additional material but that its original decision remained unchanged.

A separate trader alleged:

[Reviewer: algri973 | Claimed payout requests: 5 × $5,000 | Total requested: $25,000 | Posted: 19 July 2026]

The Trading Pit responded that the five reward requests had undergone a Risk and Compliance review and that confidential internal assessment criteria could not be disclosed publicly.

Status: INVESTIGATE

FXIFY — Repeated Latency-Arbitrage Enforcement

[Period: August 2026 | Pattern: Several independent complaints | Company replies available]

Several traders recently reported account restrictions or payout rejection after FXIFY classified their activity as prohibited latency arbitrage or similar prohibited trading.

One significant case involved:

[Reviewer: Darren Tan Jun Jie | Alleged payout: $9,600 | First payout request | Updated: August 2026]

The trader denied using latency arbitrage and requested evidence.

FXIFY publicly maintained that its Risk Department had identified prohibited trading activity.

Status: HIGH CONCERN — PATTERN UNDER REVIEW

FundingPips — Device-ID / Account Association Complaints

[Period: August 2026 | Pattern: Multiple recent trader reports]

Several traders reported account closures or payout problems after FundingPips allegedly identified shared or associated devices.

Examples include traders claiming devices had previously been used by:

a brother, another trader or another person on the same network/device environment.

Some traders dispute that this proves account sharing.

Status: HIGH CONCERN — POLICY REVIEW NEEDED

NYS Markets — Unusually High Complaint Concentration

[Trustpilot rating captured: 2.2/5 | Reviews: approximately 688 | 1-star share: 55% | Captured: 14 August 2026]

NYS Markets produced one of the strongest negative public signals in this week’s monitoring.

Recent complaints involved:

payout disputes, news-trading breaches, maximum-risk calculations, account closures and platform-price disagreements.

However, NYS Markets has also begun providing detailed public responses to some cases.

For example:

[Account: 201088 | Trader claimed final loss: approximately $130 | Company response: floating trade-idea risk allegedly reached 2.02% against a 2.00% maximum]

This is exactly why Prop Firm Evidence will not judge cases purely from the trader’s review.

The company evidence must also be examined.

Status: FULL AUDIT CANDIDATE

WEEKLY PROP FIRM EVIDENCE RADAR

Important: These are weekly evidence signals, not permanent rankings or declarations that a company is good or bad.

POSITIVE SIGNAL OF THE WEEK

My Funded Futures

[Trustpilot: approximately 21,000 reviews | Rating captured: 4.9/5 | 1-star share: approximately 2% | Captured: August 2026]

Prop Firm Evidence also looks for positive evidence.

My Funded Futures produced one of the strongest positive public signals among the companies monitored this week.

Recent traders reported successful payouts and positive support experiences.

For example:

[Reviewer: Brayden Gilsdorf | Posted: approximately 12 August 2026]

The reviewer stated that he had received three payouts, with funds arriving within approximately an hour after completing the required paperwork.

Another long-term user stated:

[Reviewer: Bryinn | Posted: 14 August 2026]

that he had been using the firm since 2023 and praised payout speed and customer support.

There were still negative reports this week involving inactivity rules, verification and account closures.

Therefore:

We are NOT naming My Funded Futures the “Best Prop Firm.”

We are naming it:

Strongest Positive Public Signal of the Week

NEXT WEEK’S WATCHLIST

Prop Firm Evidence will continue monitoring:

NYS Markets

for payout and breach complaints.

Topstep

for account closures, billing complaints and profitable-trader compliance cases.

The Trading Pit

for payout disputes and its Trustpilot integrity warning.

Fintokei

for account terminations based on business/risk suitability rather than a specific trading-rule breach.

Finotive Funding

for payout delays and broader Risk Review provisions.

RIGHT TO REPLY

Prop Firm Evidence believes companies must have a fair opportunity to respond.

For every case elevated to a formal investigation, we will seek:

[Exact rule used]

[Account-specific evidence]

[Company explanation]

[Trader response]

[Appeal status]

[Final outcome]

If evidence supplied by a company shows that a complaint is inaccurate, incomplete or resolved, our record will be updated accordingly.

The same standard applies to traders.