A public dispute has emerged between FunderPro and a trader operating under a well-known handle on X, following the closure of his funded account despite substantial payouts and a strong profit record. What began as a claim of “undisclosed rules” has now escalated into a detailed back-and-forth, with both sides presenting sharply different explanations for what happened.

The trader alleges that after generating over $20,000 in payouts and holding another $8,500 pending, FunderPro abruptly terminated his account based on internal criteria that do not appear in their rulebook or terms of service. He claims the firm told him that traders must either generate significantly more profit relative to drawdown—or spend more on challenges than they earn—to remain eligible for full payouts. He maintains that such a requirement effectively means traders must either lose money or generate outsized returns.

He also states that after an initial call with FunderPro, both sides agreed he would receive a final payout at an 80% split and then be banned from further funding. According to him, the firm reversed the agreement two weeks later and forced a second call, prompting him to take a 100% payout and voluntarily exit due to what he described as trust concerns.

FunderPro Responds: “We Can’t Allow Gamblers to Trade at Our Risk.”

FunderPro’s founder, Gary Mullen, responded publicly, stating that the issue was not an undisclosed rule but the trader’s high-volatility trading behavior. According to Mullen:

Following this, the firm’s official X account provided further detail, emphasizing that there is no firmwide deficit rule, and instead pointing to the trader’s historical drawdown and position sizing:

  • Account 1:

    • –$9,550 drawdown from the first three trades

    • +$13,175 from the next two trades

    • –$20,402 drawdown over the next five trades

    • Final trade allegedly described as a “Hail Mary” 25-lot position

    FunderPro argued this pattern showed excessive variance and poor risk discipline.

  • Account 2:

    • Repeated 20-lot positions

    • While profitable, the firm claimed the pattern was “unsustainable” and likely to lead to a future blowout.

FunderPro concluded there was “no possible way to have a win-win situation” when traders employ this level of volatility.

The Trader Pushes Back: “If You Want Rules, Make Them Rules.”

The trader fired back publicly, disputing every component of FunderPro’s explanation.

On the alleged drawdown sequence, he wrote that the firm’s breakdown “doesn’t even make sense,” arguing that if the firm doesn’t want traders to lose $9,550 in three trades, they should “just add a max risk per trade rule.”

On the claim that his 25-lot position was “bad trading,” he countered that FunderPro already has leverage limits, margin restrictions, and could easily add a maximum lot size rule if desired.

On the accusation of “systematic 20-lot trades” being unsustainable, he pointed out the contradiction: the firm first criticized him for varying his lot sizes, then criticized him again for keeping them consistent.

He described the explanation as inconsistent and arbitrary, adding that none of these concerns were raised during prior discussions with the firm. He also encouraged FunderPro to release all recordings and emails so the public can review the full context.


A Wider Industry Conversation

The dispute highlights a growing tension in the prop-trading industry:

  • Firms increasingly rely on internal risk models that are not publicly disclosed.

  • Traders expect transparency and rule-based enforcement, not discretionary decisions.

  • High-volatility strategies, while potentially profitable, are often incompatible with firms that mirror trades or maintain risk budgets.

Cases like this continue to fuel debate about whether prop firms should explicitly codify internal risk thresholds—such as maximum lot sizes, risk-per-trade limits, or drawdown behavior—rather than taking action after the fact.

With both sides now publicly posting their accounts of the events, the community is watching closely for further evidence, including the emails and call recordings the trader says he will release.