A funded trader has publicly accused Earnex of unfairly denying a payout, alleging the firm retroactively applied a news-rule violation tied to a tentative economic release that, according to the trader, was not listed on any major calendar at the time of execution.

The claims were shared after nearly a week of attempted private resolution, which the trader says failed to produce clarity or payment.

The Core Allegation

According to the trader, Earnex rejected the payout by citing stop-loss or take-profit modification within a news window. However, the trader disputes the legitimacy of the breach, arguing that no confirmed high-impact news event existed at the time of the trade.

The trader states that:

  • Earnex’s own economic calendar showed no high-impact news on the day

  • Forex Factory also listed no scheduled high-impact events

  • The referenced economic release was marked “tentative”, without a confirmed time

  • The trade was executed and managed safely before the tentative event appeared

  • The news appeared only afterward, making compliance impossible

Based on this, the trader argues that no reasonable trader — or firm — could have anticipated or avoided a news window that was not publicly defined.

Timeline Shared by the Trader

The trader provided a timeline to support the claim:

  • Before 1:20 PM:

    • Trade executed

    • Earnex calendar checked — no news

    • Forex Factory checked — no news

  • Around 1:40 PM:

    • A tentative news event appeared

The trader maintains that the payout denial was based on information that became visible after the trade had already been executed and partially managed.

Concerns Raised About Transparency

The trader questions how traders are expected to comply with news rules if:

  • No confirmed event time is published

  • No warning is visible on the firm’s own calendar

  • A tentative event can later be treated as a breach

He frames the issue as one of transparency and predictability, arguing that risk controls should be clear, accessible, and enforceable at the time of trading — not after the fact.

Public Escalation After Private Attempts

The trader states that he initially attempted to resolve the matter privately and respectfully. After several days without resolution, he chose to make the issue public to raise awareness among other traders.

He emphasizes that his goal is not continued business with Earnex, but rather payment of the denied payout and accountability for what he describes as unfair handling.

Firm's Response

As of publication, Earnex has not issued a public response to the allegations. The claims remain on the trader’s account and have not been independently verified.

Why This Matters to Traders

The case has sparked discussion in the prop trading community around:

  • How news rules are defined and enforced

  • Whether tentative or unconfirmed events can justify payout denials

  • The balance between genuine risk management and post-trade enforcement

The trader warns that if payout decisions can hinge on retroactive interpretations, profitable traders may face uncertainty even when following visible rules.