Under Competitor Attack 

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Apr 14, 2026

Dear Victoria,

The A/B book structure does not make success impossible. It makes real funding sustainable. There is a very important difference. Most firms avoid this problem by using hidden restrictions, payout denials, trailing drawdowns, consistency traps, or by building a model that only works until too many traders become profitable. We chose the opposite path.

At FundedHive, we back real performance with a real capital model. That means we also need real risk architecture behind it. If an account falls into the protected zone and switches, that is not some trick to block traders. It is the mechanism that protects the real funding environment and allows us to continue doing what almost nobody else can do consistently, which is paying traders without denial games.

Calling it “debt” is also an oversimplification. The logic is straightforward: if real capital has already taken a hit, the system requires recovery before that account is treated again as being above water in the real funded environment. That is not unfair. That is exactly how a serious real-capital model must work if it wants to survive long term and keep payouts real.

And the results speak for themselves. Even though FundedHive is only around one year old, we are already paying out more to traders than many much bigger and older firms with this model. You can see this publicly on Payout Junction: https://payoutjunction.com/firm/fundedhive
. On top of that, all FundedHive payouts can be independently verified on-chain, which is a level of transparency that the average A/B book firm simply does not provide.

The truth is very simple. If we wanted an easier-looking model for marketing, we could have done what many others did in this industry. We did not. We built a model that is harder to misunderstand, but far more sustainable, transparent, and honest. That is why FundedHive has never denied a payout, and that is why every payout is verifiable on-chain.

AADS is not the reason traders fail. It is the reason the ecosystem can keep paying those who perform.

Thomas CEO

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Updated Apr 14, 2026

Dear Ares,

Thank you for the feedback.

First, on Pay From Profits: this is not a vague concept. It means traders can access funding with a much lower upfront cost, and after passing, the funded fee is covered from profits according to the model parameters. It was designed to reduce the burden on traders and make funding more accessible.

Second, regarding MT5, there is a very important reason why FundedHive currently operates only with cTrader.

FundedHive is not running on a partially manual system like most firms in this industry. We are the only prop firm operating with a fully automated architecture from end to end. That includes account issuing, rule execution, rule changes, payout verification, and automated payouts. Everything is built to run from A to Z on autopilot.

That level of deep automation and system-wide integration was only possible for us with cTrader at this stage. We did not choose cTrader randomly. We chose it because it was the platform that allowed us to build the most advanced automated prop infrastructure in the industry.

At the same time, we have already started integrating MT5, and this is planned to come out this year, as we have announced multiple times in our Discord announcement channel.

So the reality is not that we ignored the platform question. The reality is that FundedHive prioritized building the most advanced and transparent automated system first, and cTrader was the only platform that allowed that level of integration at the time.

Best,
Thomas CEO

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Apr 14, 2026

Dear Dani,

This review tries to frame a rule misunderstanding and a support dispute as if FundedHive were running a deceptive system. That is simply false.

First, FundedHive does not operate a hidden or improvised model. Our entire system is rule-based, automated, and applied in real time. The A/B-book structure is not designed to take away a trader’s edge. It exists because we run a real-capital model, and real-capital models require real risk architecture. Without that, firms end up doing what much of this industry does: payout denials, hidden restrictions, trailing drawdowns, consistency traps, and discretionary excuses. We chose the exact opposite.

Second, the claim that traders are somehow left without information is also inaccurate. The information is available throughout our ecosystem. It is explained in our Terms and Conditions, in the Frequently Asked Questions on the website, across our Discord servers, through our support system, on the website itself, and directly on the landing page. So the idea that these mechanics are hidden is simply not correct.

If a support agent explained a mechanic unclearly in one conversation, that is a communication issue that can be reviewed. But that is not evidence that the model itself is deceptive. It is completely unfair to jump from one disputed explanation to calling the entire system rigged, especially when the system itself executes automatically and consistently for everyone.

Third, describing the model as something that “punishes losses immediately while nullifying wins” is a misleading way to talk about recovery logic in a real-funded environment. When real capital takes a hit, recovery must happen before the account is effectively back above water. That is not a trap. That is the only honest and sustainable way to run a real-market-backed model while continuing to pay traders long term.

And the results are public. FundedHive has never denied a payout. All payouts are verifiable on-chain. Even though we are only around one year old, we are already paying out more to traders than many much larger and older firms. That is publicly visible here: https://payoutjunction.com/firm/fundedhive

So no, the issue here is not deception. The issue is either misunderstanding, frustration, or dissatisfaction with an answer received from support. Those are very different things.

Thomas CEO

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Apr 14, 2026

Dear Jujare,

Thank you for the feedback, and at least this is a fair review in the sense that you are pointing to a specific rule rather than making false claims.
That said, the funded weekend holding restriction is not there to make trading harder for no reason. It exists because FundedHive operates a real-capital-backed model, and weekend exposure creates a completely different risk profile from normal market hours. When markets are closed, positions cannot be actively managed, liquidity conditions can change sharply, and reopening gaps can instantly create losses that cannot be controlled in the same way as during live trading.
Weekend holding is also not realistically compatible with a true A-book model where we risk real capital through our licensed brokerage to mirror trades and trade ideas in the live market. If a large opening gap happens, it can wipe out not only your account’s intended risk parameters, but also create broader capital stress across the deployed allocation that is there to support A-book execution. In other words, this is not only about one account. It is about protecting the real capital pool that allows funded traders to exist in the first place and making sure capital remains available when valid A-book signals are coming.
This matters even more in a system like ours because we provide real funding into a real brokerage environment. So the funded stage cannot be treated like a simulation with unlimited flexibility and no consequence. Real market-backed funding requires real risk protections.
It is also important to note that this rule is not hidden. It is clearly communicated across our ecosystem, including our Terms and Conditions, FAQ, website materials, landing pages, Discord, and support system. So while we understand that some swing traders may not like the rule, it is not something introduced later or buried from traders.
Also, for swing traders, this does not mean your broader market idea becomes impossible. You can simply reopen the position after market open if the setup remains valid. What is restricted is unmanaged weekend exposure on funded capital, not your ability to participate in the market again once trading resumes under live conditions.
FundedHive supports many trading styles, but that does not mean every style can be supported with zero structural limits in the funded environment. Weekend holding on funded accounts is one of the areas where sustainability and risk control must come first.
So we respect that this rule may make FundedHive less suitable for your specific swing-trading approach. But that is very different from saying the model is unfair. In reality, this is one of the protections that helps us do what many firms in the industry fail to do, which is maintain a sustainable real-capital system with automated, verifiable payouts and no payout denials.
The fast payouts are not separate from these protections. They are possible because the system is built with rules that preserve long-term sustainability.

Thomas CEO

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Apr 14, 2026

What you are describing is not proof of unfairness. It is proof that the funded stage is based on real capital logic, not on a soft simulation.

Every trader knows that trading on a demo account is always easier than trading with capital. That is just the reality of trading. Once real capital is involved, risk management, exposure control, and execution quality matter on a completely different level. So yes, passing a challenge can feel easier than operating in a funded environment, because the funded environment is where real capital protection begins.

If a firm truly A-books and mirrors exposure through a licensed brokerage environment, then stricter risk architecture is unavoidable. Otherwise the result is what the industry has shown for years: payout denials, hidden restrictions, trailing drawdowns, consistency traps, or firms collapsing when traders become profitable.

So no, this is not some hidden surprise. It is the natural consequence of a real-capital-backed model. The funded stage is designed to be sustainable, not artificially easy.

And despite all the criticism, the results remain public: FundedHive has never denied a payout, all payouts are verifiable on-chain, and even though we are only around one year old, we are already paying out more to traders than many much bigger and older firms: https://payoutjunction.com/firm/fundedhive

You may prefer a softer model on the surface, but softer usually means less real, less sustainable, and eventually less reliable when payout pressure comes. FundedHive chose the harder truth instead of the easier marketing.

Thomas CEO

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Apr 14, 2026

Dear Chhatrapal,

Thank you so much for the support.

We truly appreciate every trader who understands what we are building here. FundedHive was created to bring real transparency, real automation, and real payouts into an industry that has needed change for a long time.

We are only getting started, and with the community behind us, we will keep pushing to build the most trusted and innovative prop ecosystem in the world.

Thomas CEO

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Apr 14, 2026

We take this kind of claim very seriously.

FundedHive has very strict support policies, and we keep records of all tickets and support interactions. If this really happened, please open a ticket again and show us exactly which conversation you are referring to, including which support agent spoke to you in that way.

If you can provide the proof, we can review it internally and take action where necessary. But based on our current records, we have not recorded an incident matching what you described.

We are always open to reviewing real evidence, because respect and professionalism are standards we expect from every member of our team.

Thomas CEO

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Apr 14, 2026

Without this system, FundedHive would end up looking like the same kind of short-term unsustainable model that has damaged trust across the industry.

We did not build FundedHive to be a pump-and-dump operation, and we did not build it around a model that only works until too many traders become profitable. We built it around real capital, real execution, real risk architecture, and long-term sustainability.

That is exactly why the A-book / B-book structure exists. Without real protection of allocated capital, any firm eventually faces the same outcome: either payout denials, hidden restrictions, sudden rule changes, or a business model that breaks under pressure.

Thanks, but we are not interested in building that kind of company.

We would rather operate a stricter real-capital model that stays transparent, keeps paying traders, and remains sustainable long term than offer an easier-looking system that cannot survive success.

Thomas CEO

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Apr 14, 2026

Dear Sardor,

Nothing changed on our side. Same model, same transparency, same on-chain payouts, same Pay From Profits structure, same automation.

But somehow, suddenly, brand new accounts with zero previous reviews started appearing and dropping only 1-star reviews. A little bit fishy, not gonna lie.

Still, we really appreciate people like you who actually understand what FundedHive is building. Cheap and accessible entry, real skin in the game, transparent payouts, and a system where you can literally track withdrawals publicly. That is exactly why we believe this is a real game changer in the prop space.

So thank you for seeing it clearly. The Hive notices.

Thomas CEO

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Apr 14, 2026

Thank you for the feedback, and we appreciate that you clearly stated you do not question our credibility.

First, an important correction: you were never asked to pay 3% from your own pocket. That is simply not accurate. FundedHive offers the Pay From Profits option, and even in higher risk categories, up to 50% of the funded fee can be covered this way. So the idea that you were somehow forced to keep paying everything yourself is not correct.

All of this is also clearly explained. The rules around risk groups, funded fee structure, and Pay From Profits are available across our ecosystem, including the Terms and Conditions, FAQ, website, landing pages, Discord, and support system.

The reason this structure exists is simple: it is the only way we can provide cheaper access to funding while still adjusting the funded fee based on the actual risk style of the account. In other words, this is the only funding model on the market where your skill can directly reduce the cost of your funded fee.

Even if a trader fails multiple accounts or abandons multiple challenges because they ended up in the wrong risk category, the entry cost is still dramatically lower than with regular challenge models. In practical terms, even if only every fourth account ends up in the trader’s desired lower-risk category, the total spend is still roughly the same as buying one regular challenge elsewhere from the start.

So this is not a system designed to overcharge traders. It is actually one of the cheapest and most skill-based funding paths in the market.

On slippage itself, what you are describing is the difference between real market execution and artificial simulated execution. In a real A-book environment, especially on volatile instruments, slippage can happen because orders are filled where buyers and sellers are actually available. If liquidity is consumed quickly across several levels, the final execution can move beyond the intended stop level. That is not manipulation. That is real market behavior.

This is exactly why FundedHive created slippage protection in the first place. We openly acknowledge that real slippage exists, especially in current market conditions where volatility can be extreme. We do not hide this reality behind fake fills, altered charts, or artificial execution just to make the experience look smoother.

At the same time, if your strategy depends on very tight low-risk execution where even a larger-than-expected fill changes the entire trade structure, then this specific account type may indeed not be the right fit for your style. That is a suitability issue, not a credibility issue.

FundedHive was built around real execution, real transparency, and real payouts. Real market behavior is part of that reality too.

Bidro

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Apr 8, 2026

We never interfere with anyone’s trades.

If you believe otherwise, please share clear proof publicly in our Discord so the entire community can review it transparently.

Without evidence, these claims are simply accusations and do not reflect how our system operates.

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Apr 14, 2026

Dear Nathaniel,

You highlighted what makes FundedHive different: on-chain transparency, tight spread execution, slippage protection, and automated daily payouts. These are not marketing buzzwords for us. They are real infrastructure, and they are one of the reasons FundedHive stands apart in this industry.

Your note in the cons section is also fair and important. Traders really do need to read the rules and understand the account model before purchasing. We made that information available across the website, landing pages, FAQ, Terms and Conditions, Discord, and support because this is a structured system, not a vague promise.

So thank you for recognizing both sides honestly. That kind of review is valuable because it is supportive, but also responsible.

Thomas CEO

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Apr 14, 2026

We understand that frustration can lead to strong words, but calling Pay From Profits the “worst mistake” does not explain what actually happened.

PFP is not for everyone, but it is also one of the most trader-supportive models in the market. It allows traders to access funding with a much lower upfront cost, and depending on the risk category, even the funded fee can be reduced through profits instead of being paid fully from your own pocket.

The A-book rule structure also does not “suck.” It exists because FundedHive runs a real-capital-backed model. Without that protection layer, we would be just another unsustainable firm pretending to offer funding until payout pressure comes.

Every trader knows demo conditions are easier than real-capital conditions. That is exactly why funded trading has stricter structure. It is not there to sabotage traders. It is there to keep the model sustainable and to keep payouts real.

All of these rules are explained clearly across our website, FAQ, Terms and Conditions, Discord, landing pages, and support system.

So if the model did not fit your style, that is fair. But that is very different from saying the model itself is bad.

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Apr 14, 2026

We did read it.

But this review is presenting disagreement with a real-capital model as if it were proof of deception, and that is simply not true.

First, yes, funded trading is harder than challenge trading. Every trader knows trading on demo-style conditions is easier than trading with real capital. Once real capital is involved, risk architecture becomes stricter. That is not sabotage. That is reality.

Second, the A-Book / B-Book structure is not hidden and it is not there to “steal” profits. It exists because FundedHive runs a real-capital-backed model. Without capital protection, we would end up like many firms in this industry that look easy at first, then rely on payout denials, hidden restrictions, or collapse under payout pressure. We chose sustainability instead.

Third, the pricing and Pay From Profits structure are not hidden either. FundedHive’s website publicly shows low access-fee entry points for PFP challenges, states that funded accounts can start from $49 depending on the risk category, and explains that the funded fee depends on the risk management category assigned from trading performance. The site also states that lower-risk categories can pay more from profits, while high risk is handled differently.

That means the point of the model is the opposite of what you are claiming. It is specifically designed to reduce the upfront barrier and make funding cheaper, while adjusting the funded fee based on actual trading behavior. Even if a trader goes through multiple attempts before reaching the desired lower-risk category, the entry path can still be far cheaper than paying full traditional challenge pricing from day one. That is exactly why this model exists.

Fourth, the broader rules are also public. FundedHive’s site openly lists dynamic leverage, funded weekend-holding restrictions, max daily loss, max loss per trade, and profit split information. The FAQ also says traders can contact support if they need clarification. So the idea that all of this is somehow hidden until after passing is not accurate.

Finally, the biggest thing your review ignores is results. FundedHive has never denied a payout, payouts are verifiable on-chain, and Payout Junction publicly tracks FundedHive among prop-firm payout data.

So no, this is not proof that the model is rigged. It is proof that a real-capital model feels harder than a challenge environment. Those are not the same thing.

Thomas CEO

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Apr 14, 2026

This review mixes personal dissatisfaction with claims that are simply false or misleading.

First, FundedHive is not a “fake prop firm.” We have never denied a payout, all payouts are verifiable on-chain, and even though we are only around one year old, we are already paying out more to traders than many much bigger and older firms. That is publicly visible on Payout Junction: https://payoutjunction.com/firm/fundedhive

Second, the additional payment point is not hidden. On Pay From Profits models, the funded fee structure is clearly explained in advance. That is exactly why the entry price is much lower than traditional challenge models. The model allows traders to access funding cheaper and, depending on the risk category, even pay part of the funded fee from profits. That is not deception. That is one of the most trader-supportive funding structures in the market.

Third, on slippage, real slippage in a real A-book environment is not the same as manipulation. In volatile markets, orders are filled where liquidity is actually available. That is why slippage protection exists in the first place. We acknowledge real market conditions instead of hiding them behind fake simulated fills.

Fourth, regarding MT5, there is a clear reason why FundedHive currently operates on cTrader. We built the most advanced automated prop infrastructure in the industry, including account issuing, rule execution, payout verification, and automated payouts from A to Z. At this stage, this depth of integration was only possible with cTrader. MT5 integration is already in progress.

Fifth, the profitable-days rule and the broader account model are not hidden. The rules are clearly explained across our website, landing pages, FAQ, Terms and Conditions, Discord, and support system. The same applies to leverage, risk groups, and funded model specifics.

Finally, if you had a bad support interaction, that can be reviewed. But broad claims about “worst support” without proof do not establish misconduct. We keep records of support interactions and have strict internal policies.

So no, this is not proof that FundedHive is fake. It is proof that you did not like the model. Those are very different things.

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Apr 14, 2026

Thank you for the fair feedback.

We appreciate that your issue is not with FundedHive itself, but with the platform environment currently available.

There is a very specific reason why cTrader is our only active option at the moment. FundedHive is not running on a partially manual backend like most firms in this industry. We built a fully automated system from A to Z, including account issuing, rule execution, rule changes, payout verification, and automated payouts. At this stage, that level of deep integration was only possible for us with cTrader.

On top of that, because FundedHive operates a real A-book model through our licensed brokerage environment, the platform structure also has to match how real exposure is handled behind the scenes. That is one of the reasons the current setup is built the way it is.

We fully understand that some traders prefer other platform styles, especially if they are used to different order handling or trade management methods. That feedback is fair.

The good news is that we already started integrating MT5, and this is planned for release this year, as we have announced multiple times in our Discord announcements.

So while we understand the frustration with cTrader as a personal preference, it is not there by accident. It was the platform that allowed us to build the most advanced automated and transparent prop infrastructure first.