Under Competitor Attack 

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Apr 14, 2026

Dear Tasio,

Thank you for the honest feedback.

We appreciate that you pointed out both sides fairly. It is good to hear that your experience so far has been solid, that the rules feel straightforward, and that execution and NASDAQ spreads are meeting expectations.

We also understand the leverage point. Dynamic leverage is part of how we protect a real-capital-backed model, but we know some traders would still like more flexibility, and that feedback is valid.

As for platform expansion, we are continuously working on future integrations and improvements. Our focus has always been to build the most advanced automated and transparent prop infrastructure first, and then expand responsibly from that base.

Wishing you strong progress in Phase 2, and we hope your next update will be after a successful payout.

Thomas CEO

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.

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Apr 14, 2026

Thank you for the detailed feedback.

First, we want to make one thing clear: if support refunded part of the slippage, that already proves this was not a case of denial, avoidance, or pretending nothing happened. It means the case was reviewed under the slippage policy and handled according to the protection framework that exists on challenge accounts.

The key issue here is where the misunderstanding begins.

Real slippage and breach logic are not the same thing. In a real market environment, especially in volatile conditions, execution can move beyond the intended stop because orders are filled where actual liquidity is available. That is exactly why slippage protection exists in the first place. But slippage protection does not mean that every trade outcome or every account-state consequence can simply be erased afterward as if the market event never happened.

In your own example, support acknowledged the slippage amount that qualified under the policy and refunded that portion. That is a protection mechanism. But the account breach logic is still rule-based and automated. It cannot be manually rewritten every time a trader is unhappy with the resulting account state, otherwise the entire system would stop being consistent and fair for everyone.

It is also important to understand that the market does not care whether a breach happened by a wide margin or by a narrow margin. If the account crosses the defined threshold, the system registers it. That is exactly what automated rule enforcement means.

You also mention that your slippage buffer was already built into the trade. That is fair, but in extreme volatility even a pre-planned buffer may still not fully absorb real execution movement. That is not ideal, but it is part of real market behavior, especially in instruments and moments where multiple liquidity levels are consumed quickly.

What FundedHive does differently is that we do not hide this behind fake fills or manipulated charts. We openly acknowledge slippage, we built a slippage protection framework, and we reviewed your case under that policy. That is already far more transparent than how most firms in this industry operate.

So the honest conclusion is this: your frustration is understandable, but this is not proof of unfair handling. It is proof that real execution and automated risk enforcement can create outcomes that traders do not like, especially near risk thresholds.

FundedHive was built around real execution, real transparency, and rule consistency. That means when protection applies, it is applied. And when the system threshold is breached, it is enforced. That consistency is exactly why the model remains sustainable and credible long term.

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Apr 14, 2026

Thank you for the fair and honest feedback.

We are glad your experience so far has been positive and that you found the rules straightforward. That matters to us a lot, because FundedHive was built around clarity, automation, and transparency.

Regarding your question about the medium risk funded fee structure, yes, in that model part of the funded fee is paid upfront and the remaining part is covered from profits. That does not mean your profits are being randomly withheld. It simply means the remaining funded fee portion is settled according to the published model before the relevant payout amount is fully unlocked.

So the important distinction is this: it is not “withholding” in the negative sense. It is the normal Pay From Profits structure working exactly as explained.

Once your funded account is live and you are eligible for payout under the rules, the system handles it according to the account model. FundedHive has never denied a payout, and payouts are verifiable on-chain, which is exactly why we built this structure differently from the rest of the industry.

In simple terms, your daily payout eligibility is tied to the account model and the remaining funded fee mechanics, not to any discretionary decision from our side. That is the benefit of automation. The system applies the rules consistently, not emotionally.

So your uncertainty is understandable, but the answer is no, this is not about us holding profits back unfairly. It is just the funded fee settlement logic of the medium risk Pay From Profits model working as designed. Once that structure is satisfied, payouts continue according to the normal eligibility conditions.

We appreciate the thoughtful review, and we hope your next update is after a successful Phase 2 pass and payout.

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Apr 14, 2026

This is simply false, and calling it a scam does not change the math or the rules you agreed to.

First, the Pay From Profits structure is not hidden. It is clearly explained before purchase across the website, landing pages, FAQ, Terms and Conditions, Discord, and support system.

Second, if you forgot to place a stop loss on a trade, that is not a company trick. That is a rule violation. The system then assigns the account according to the actual risk style shown by your trading behavior. That is exactly why the funded fee can change. Lower-risk behavior gets more favorable funding terms. Higher-risk behavior gets less favorable terms. That is the whole point of the model.

Third, the claim that we “take another $63 from profits” as if it were some secret extra charge is also misleading. The funded fee structure is part upfront and part from profits depending on the risk category. That is not a second hidden charge. That is the published model working exactly as designed.

And this is the part many people ignore: even with multiple attempts, this model can still be far cheaper than traditional challenge models. Even if you end up in the wrong risk category several times before reaching the desired one, you are often still spending far less than you would with regular full-price challenges elsewhere.

So no, this is not a scam. This is a skill-based funding model where the funded fee depends on the risk profile you actually demonstrate. If your trading behavior changes the category, the funding terms change with it. That is not deception. That is the structure.

You are free not to like the model, but misrepresenting a clearly explained risk-based fee system as fraud is simply not honest.

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Apr 14, 2026

We understand that the A-book / B-book structure is not for everyone, but calling it the “worst experience” does not change why it exists.

Funded trading with real capital will always be harder than trading a challenge or demo-style environment. Every serious trader knows that. Once real capital is involved, real risk architecture becomes necessary.

That is exactly why the A-book / B-book system exists. It is not there to sabotage traders. It is there to protect real allocated capital and keep the model sustainable long term. Without that, we would be no different from the many firms that look easy at first, then end up relying on payout denials, hidden traps, or failing when traders become profitable.

FundedHive chose the harder but more honest route.

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. You can see that publicly here: https://payoutjunction.com/firm/fundedhive

That is exactly why we believe the A-book model is better, not only for the firm, but for traders as well. A model that can actually sustain payouts, avoid denials, and keep operating transparently is far better than a softer-looking system that eventually turns against profitable traders.

So if the model does not fit your trading style, that is fair. But that is very different from saying the system is bad. It is simply a real-capital model with real rules.

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Apr 14, 2026

Thank you so much, we truly appreciate it ❤️

That is exactly what FundedHive was built for: real A-book execution, real automation, real transparency, and a system that can actually scale the right way.

Much love back from us, and trust us, we are only getting started. The Hive will keep growing.

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Mar 2, 2026

We are honestly surprised by this comment because everything described here is clearly explained in multiple places before purchase.

First, leverage at FundedHive is dynamic, and this is transparently communicated:

• On the website
• In the FAQ section with detailed explanation
• On a single summarized Terms and Conditions page at the very top
• Separately listed for each individual challenge type

There is no hidden information.

On a 100K account, leverage is 1:50 up to 100,000 USD exposure.
After that, leverage decreases step-by-step as clearly stated in the Terms and Conditions.

This is not 1:1 leverage.
This is dynamic leverage based on exposure tiers.

Dynamic leverage is essential for operating a hybrid A-Book / B-Book risk model responsibly. Without dynamic leverage, it would be mathematically impossible to maintain proper margin requirements and cover risk exposure from incoming revenues in a sustainable way.

If we allowed static 1:50 on unlimited exposure, the system would either:

• Require significantly higher fees
• Or become financially unstable

Neither of which would serve traders.

You mentioned you expected to open 20 lots with 5 pip SL for 1% risk. That assumption ignores margin mechanics and exposure tiers. Leverage determines required margin per position, but dynamic exposure limits control total risk concentration.

This structure protects:

• The trader
• The ecosystem
• The payout sustainability

Everything is documented clearly and publicly before purchase. We cannot be responsible for someone not reading the clearly displayed leverage model.

We are always open to constructive discussion, but calling the firm dishonest while ignoring publicly available documentation is simply unfair.

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Feb 20, 2026

Hi 🐝

Thank you so much for your kind words.

Feedback like this means a lot to us, especially because everything we build is centered around fairness, automation, and transparency. From instant payouts to rule-based evaluation and smart contract execution, our mission is to create a professional environment where traders can truly grow.

We’re proud to have you in the Hive.
Let’s keep building together.

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Feb 20, 2026

Hi,

Let’s be very clear.

There are no hidden rules. None.

Risk levels are:

• Displayed before you purchase
• Explained on the pricing page
• Written in the FAQ
• Included in the Terms & Conditions
• Visible inside your dashboard

They are applied automatically by the system. Not manually. Not emotionally. Not randomly.

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Feb 20, 2026

Hi 🐝

This is exactly what we set out to build.

Under-60-second payouts are not marketing. They’re infrastructure. Once a withdrawal is approved by the system, it’s executed automatically through smart contract logic. No waiting queue. No manual delay. No “finance department review.”

And yes, transparency matters.

Every payout transaction is verifiable on-chain. That means it’s not based on trust, it’s based on public proof. Anyone can verify the transaction hash. That’s a completely different standard compared to traditional prop models.

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Feb 20, 2026

Hi 🐝

This is exactly the type of feedback that motivates the whole team.

Daily payouts, transparent pricing, and fast support are not “extras” for us. They are core pillars of how a modern prop firm should operate. When someone passes, they shouldn’t have to wait. When someone has a question, they shouldn’t feel ignored.

Huge respect for passing multiple challenges. That shows consistency and discipline. And the fact that you’re coming back for more means we’re doing something right.

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Feb 20, 2026

Hi,

We have carefully reviewed your account #1017759.

While you did generate profit during Phase 2, the account was closed because one of your trades exceeded the maximum loss per trade rule.

Your recorded loss per trade was:

3.14%
Maximum allowed: 3.0%

This rule is clearly displayed in the dashboard, terms, and trading objectives. The system monitors it automatically and applies it equally to all traders to ensure fairness and consistency.

We understand it is frustrating to miss the limit by a small margin. However, risk management is a core requirement in professional trading. Even small deviations matter.

We always encourage traders to:

• Leave buffer room below the maximum limit
• Monitor risk percentage before execution
• Build consistency over aggressive sizing

We remain committed to providing a transparent and rule-based environment where every account is evaluated equally.

We wish you better risk control on your next attempt.

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Feb 20, 2026

Hi,

If the “better model” you’re referring to is a pure B-Book structure, then we genuinely wish you the best of luck with that.

Many firms operate fully internalized models where every trade stays in-house permanently. That can feel simpler on the surface. But it also means your performance is always directly against the firm’s internal exposure.

Our model is hybrid and dynamic by design. Routing decisions are automated and risk-based, not emotional and not personal. It allows sustainability, instant payouts, and long-term viability without freezing accounts or delaying withdrawals.

If a pure B-Book environment fits your expectations better, that’s completely your choice. Different traders prefer different structures.

We built this model intentionally. It’s transparent, automated, and rule-driven.

We wish you success wherever you trade.

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Jan 29, 2026

Thank you for your kind words and for taking the time to share this feedback.

We truly appreciate you recognizing the value-for-money aspect of our model and the work that goes into building a transparent, rule-based prop firm. Feedback like this means a lot to our team and reinforces why we focus on automation, clear structure, and fairness for traders.

We wish you all the best on your trading journey, and you are always welcome back at Funded Hive.

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Updated Jan 26, 2026

After carefully checking our system, we could not find a single challenge or funded account registered under your details. Without an active or past account, it is not possible to open support tickets or interact with our system in the way you described. For this reason, your comment does not align with our records.

If you do have an active or previous account with us, please reach out through the official support channels using the registered email, and we will gladly review and assist your case. Otherwise, this appears to be a review not based on an actual user experience.

Reply from Under Competitor Attack

Jan 20, 2026

Thank you so much for this amazing feedback and for taking the time to share your experience. We truly appreciate your trust and support.

Our mission from day one has been to build a fair, transparent, and trader-first ecosystem, and it means a lot to see that our Web3-based payouts, clear rules, and automated systems are making a real difference. Instant payouts, zero payout denials, and allowing news trading are all part of our commitment to treating traders with respect and consistency.

We are excited to have you as part of the Hive, and we genuinely look forward to seeing you funded and making daily payouts with us. Thank you again for being part of this journey and for believing in what we are building. 🐝

Thomas the CEO