Funding
Passing is the start of the relationship, not the end of it
The evaluation fee was the easy revenue. Everything that determines whether the programme is profitable happens in the funded account that follows, and most firms give it a fraction of the attention.
Allocated per programme tier, not per negotiation
Configured on the account and visible to the trader
Which evaluation rules continue, and which relax
Eligibility window set at provisioning rather than later
The criteria for an increase, agreed at the start
All five are set when the account is provisioned rather than agreed case by case later.
See it live
Balance, holdings and eligibility, in one view
A funded trader can see their capital, distance from each limit and payout eligibility without asking — this is what that view actually looks like.
Which rules carry over
The principles that decide the answer
Recognition, on your terms
Passing a challenge and reaching a payout can produce a dated certificate the trader can show, and a leaderboard ranked on whichever measure you choose. Ranking on raw return rewards the largest position; ranking on consistency or risk-adjusted return rewards the behaviour you actually want to fund.
Opt-in, and reversible
A trader decides whether to appear publicly, and can withdraw. Publishing individual performance without consent is a data question before it is a marketing one.
Most rules should continue
Drawdown and daily loss limits exist to protect the capital, and the capital is now yours rather than a simulation. Relaxing them on funding removes the protection at the exact moment it starts to matter.
Some should relax
Minimum trading days and consistency requirements were there to filter luck during the evaluation. Continuing to enforce them on a funded trader is usually just friction.
All of it should be visible
The trader should be able to see their current drawdown, their distance from each limit and their payout eligibility without asking. Most disputes start with somebody not knowing where they stood.
FAQ
Funded accounts: common questions
6 short answers to what teams ask before a demo.
Whichever you configure, and the sensible default is that risk limits continue while evaluation filters relax. Drawdown and daily loss protect real capital now; minimum trading days and consistency were there to filter luck and have done their job.
That is a commercial and regulatory decision for your firm, and both models exist in the market. What the platform does either way is enforce the rules and calculate the split accurately, and be clear to the trader about which model they are in.
Per programme tier and visible on the account, so the trader can see it rather than reading it in terms they accepted months ago. Splits that change without notice are the most reliable source of public complaints.
Yes, on a breach of the continuing rules, handled the same way as during evaluation — automatically, with the evidence recorded. Nothing about being funded should make enforcement more ambiguous.
Yes, if your programme allows it, and aggregate exposure across them is visible. Traders running correlated positions across multiple accounts is a concentration worth seeing rather than discovering.
This governs the trader's programme rules. Your firm-wide exposure across every funded trader sits in RiskDesk, which is a different question and one that matters more as the programme grows.
Still have a question?
A specialist will answer it directly, with your set-up in mind.
Ask a specialistCan a funded trader see where they stand?
Current drawdown, distance from each limit, payout eligibility. If they have to ask, you are paying for that conversation repeatedly.