Upcomers is terrible. Don't buy it.
WHAT HAVE I EXPERIENCED WITH UPCOMERS?
First time. I reached a payout and my account was placed under review. Eventually, I received allegations regarding my trading style. What stood out to me was that most of the issues raised were not clearly defined in the publicly available rules that traders can easily review before trading. I spent a significant amount of time asking for clarification and explanations. In the end, my payout was denied, 50% of my profits were confiscated, and I accepted that outcome.
Second time. I worked directly with the Brand Reputation team regarding these concerns. After many discussions, I was told that my trading style was acceptable and did not violate any rules. However, when I reached payout again, I was once again accused of violating trading methodology rules. When I asked which specific trades were considered violations and at what times they occurred, I was told that the review was internal and that the details would not be disclosed. The payout calculation looked like this: $2,000 payout → reduced by 50% → reduced again to 25% → withdrawal fees applied. Final amount received: approximately $153. I did in fact receive only $153, and my trading account was terminated. Throughout the discussions, I repeatedly requested several basic principles: if a payout is denied, a specific explanation should be provided; if a trader is considered in violation, the company should identify the trades involved and the rule that was allegedly violated; and reviews should be based on publicly available rules. After many rounds of discussion, these points were finally acknowledged. That led me to ask a simple question: why weren’t these transparency standards in place from the beginning?
Third time. Just when I thought everything had finally been resolved, I adjusted my trading approach, continued trading, and eventually reached another payout stage. This time I received a new accusation: “Multi-accounting.” The explanation given was that two accounts had appeared on the same device and within the same network environment. One of those accounts belonged to my wife. It was registered under her own name, belonged to a different individual, had never received a payout, had stopped trading months before my second payout cycle, had no matching trades whatsoever with my account, did not trade on the same days, and showed no evidence of hedging or coordinated activity. I asked the company to clarify the evidence comparing the trading histories of both accounts and whether there was any direct evidence beyond shared devices or a shared household network.
My concern is not that a company conducts investigations. Investigations are their right. My concern is that traders can be heavily impacted by conclusions while not being provided with sufficient data or evidence to independently assess those conclusions. At times, it feels as though broad internal interpretations can outweigh the written rules available to traders. If I truly violated the rules, why was the issue not raised immediately? Why wait until payout, place the account under review for several days, and only then introduce a new reason to challenge the payout?
I believe many traders could eventually find themselves in a similar situation. This is simply my personal experience. Make your own judgment, do your own research, and read the rules very carefully before deciding to trade with any prop firm. If anyone would like to review the evidence themselves, feel free to contact me privately. I can share the relevant conversations and supporting materials so everyone can draw their own conclusions.
17 juni 2026
Review zonder uitnodiging