Finotive Funding Reviews

They said i did following which makes no sense and is not true. They also denied my payout Section 7.1(i) – Reactionary Re-entry, concerning repeated or immediate re-entry following realised losses where the subsequent activity forms part of a recovery-driven trading sequence. Section 7.1(c) – Overall Trading Strategy and Execution Profile, where the activity, when assessed as a whole, does not demonstrate sufficiently independent and consistently repeatable execution. Section 7.2 – General Prohibited and Restricted Conduct, concerning gambling-style recovery characteristics or an execution profile otherwise unsuitable for the programme. Section 7.24 – Enforcement, Retrospective Review and Manual Review Outcomes, under which Finotive Funding may adjust Reward Payments following the outcome of a Risk Review. Please allow me to clarify the following points with additional context: 1. Risk Management & Position Sizing My trading follows a strict 2:1 Risk-to-Reward ratio (sometimes adjusted to 1:1 or even 3:1 depending on market conditions). All trades are based on 5-minute and 15-minute charts. Due to the specific stop-loss placement required by my setups and leverage limitations, I used the maximum allowable lot sizes often while still respecting my 1% risk rule. Higher lot sizes would have been necessary for my original stop-loss distance, but were not possible. This was disciplined risk management, not excessive risk-taking. 2. Trading Frequency & Strategy Consistency (Section 7.1(c)) I do not trade frequently or irregularly. I often take multiple days of pause while waiting for high-quality setups. My approach is patient and selective — I wait for good setups and then execute with a usual 2:1 RR, adjusted to the current market situation. This is a consistent and repeatable execution framework. 3. Re-entries & Trade Separation • Re-entries only occurred when new additional criteria were fully met. • The mentioned re-entry had a 3-hour gap and was based on a completely new trade idea. • In Example 2, the second trade was on a different symbol (different trade idea) with reduced risk (under 1% risk taken). The XAUUSD loss in Example 2 was only 1% risk — a completely normal trade, not a “significant loss” that should trigger any restrictions. 4. No Gambling-Style Behaviour (Section 7.2) A 2:1 Risk-to-Reward ratio is one of the most widely taught and professional risk management strategies in trading literature. It is not gambling. I consistently risk only 1% per trade and have very few trades overall. I do not understand how this can be classified as “gambling-style recovery” or “unsustainable for the programme.” 5. Recovery Sequence (Example 3) The classification of my winning trades on 01.07 and 07.07 as part of a “recovery sequence” does not make sense. A 2:1 RR approach was explicitly discussed and accepted during my Risk Interview some months ago with no concerns raised. Additionally, the lot size on the 01 July trade was slightly reduced compared to previous trades. Further Important Information • I have never received any warning about my trading conduct. • The dashboard showed no flags or violations at any time, despite regular checks. • I only received the funded account one month ago. While the evaluation stage showed nothing wrong Additional Concerns: I find it highly unprofessional and unfair that there is no clear guideline in your FAQs or rules stating that the described behaviour is prohibited, nor any specific trading instructions on how traders should behave in such situations. Despite this lack of transparency, I was immediately suspended without any prior warning and all profits were heavily reduced. I was not given any opportunity to adjust my trading or submit an appeal to improve. This is not what a prop firm is supposed to be. If you see that my trading is any kind wrong i should be given a warning a chance to improve.