Prop Firm Hub

It may be good value for price but they are not reliable. Lot's (unusual) of claims about them.

Well done Monty. i want to ask/ how do you mange trades on all of them? are you using personal trade copier? is the use of trade copier allowed?

nah no copier manually.. i don’t trade more than 5 accounts at a time and try not to copy more than on 2 accounts……help me with me my mental psyche… even if i go wrong in one account i focus on other ….

100%

Thanks for the insight.
Can you please give a basic description to setup the free Yahoo Data stream?
Are you funneling it to Sierra Charts or Ninjatrader/Tradovate?

Thankyou brother. I appreciate your reply. More green pips to you

also be smart and learn from other mistakes. I have seen people get denied because of ip issue, copier rule, martingale or any sort of stuff. So i avoid them manual is better and secure atleast

Secured the freebie 5k from alpha capital…

I don't know how late I am on this website:

Find the Perfect Prop Firm For You | Prop Firm Match

propfirmmatch.com

You can filter and find best prices for challenges.

how did you do this?

they have a running offer go check their discord

MontyGoldy gonna be salivating over this list

I am using yahoo feed for Multicharts NOT for Ninjatrader or Sierra Chart.

Another one guys

my free alpha 5k already done phase 1. I recently lost 3 challenges with them (10k) when they had 40% off so maybe it's sign end of losing streak for me.

aiming for gold to help me pass this phase 1..
EDIT: closed with 2% profit

Tried all different kind of settings, but when I go back little bit more, just a few months, the Orderflow setups are not profitable in sum, just zero. So no point to make a killing with them when I would scalp through them. So now I will trade my Apex account with Price Action, thus being more an artist than doing sound analysis, I guess.

MFF busts the CFTC repeatedly lying to the court...

The CFTC Continues to Minimize its Conduct and Mislead the Court. The CFTC is still not being forthright with the Court. It is now clear that the CFTC—both lead trial counsel and the lead investigator on this case—submitted a sworn declaration that they both knew to be false when the CFTC filed its complaint and ex parte motion for an SRO. To be clear, the only proven false statements and omissions to date in this alleged fraud case are the false representations and omissions of the CFTC (a) in its sworn declaration to the Court supporting the ex parte motion for an SRO, (b) under oath in Court at the PI Hearing, and (c) by failing to timely correct the record before this Court. The CFTC’s conduct in this case is alarming, to say the least.

Until the CFTC’s latest filing, the Court and Defendants were under the misimpression that the CFTC only learned of the errors in Mr. Edelstein’s declaration after the complaint and initial SRO application were filed. Mr. Edelstein testified during his direct examination by the CFTC’s lead trial counsel in the PI Hearing that, “[s]ince filing this declaration, I have become aware that the two transactions that make up this category were, in fact, tax payments made on behalf of Mr. Kazmi,” and that he first learned of the error “in the days after filing, if not – if not the first two weeks.” That was false. Although this fact was relegated to a footnote in the CFTC’s filing (which itself is troubling and inconsistent with the standards expected of federal government counsel) and characterized by the CFTC as “immaterial” (which is ironic given the CFTC’s arguments about the materiality of the statements and omissions at issue in this case), the CFTC now concedes that “the OSC emailed Mr. Edelstein shortly before the filing of the declaration that the transfer was comprised of tax payments.” But even that concession, buried in a footnote, does not tell the whole story: the CFTC received the relevant email on August 17, 2023 (nearly two weeks before the complaint and SRO application were filed), there apparently had been “months of back and forth” about this very issue, and the email was sent not just to Mr. Edelstein but also to lead counsel for the CFTC.

Here, then, is the timeline:

• August 17, 2023: The Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC”) notified the CFTC’s lead counsel and Mr. Edelstein, “after months of back and forth,” that the $31.5 million in transfers from Traders Global’s corporate BMO account ending in 7-995 were lawful tax payments.

• August 28, 2023: The CFTC filed its ex parte motion for an SRO relying, in part, on Mr. Edelstein’s declaration.

• The declaration stated, among other things, that (1) $31,550,000 was transferred to an “unidentified Kazmi account,” and (2) Mr. Kazmi had a “non-custodial” crypto wallet

• The portion of the CFTC’s motion that was devoted to its argument for a total asset freeze read, in its entirety: “An asset freeze is necessary here to preserve the status quo and maintain the court’s jurisdiction over assets to which aggrieved customers may be entitled. In the absence of an asset freeze, Kazmi may— and is likely to—transfer or dissipate assets held in the US, either at banks or with payment companies like WooCommerce or Deel. Kazmi can easily transfer those assets to Canada, beyond the immediate reach of the Court. Indeed, this is where most of Defendants’ assets are currently. Kazmi can also convert his assets to cryptocurrency and place them in his non-custodial wallet, which cannot be frozen or seized by any jurisdiction. Or Kazmi may simply dissipate those assets through his demonstrated propensity for profligate spending.”

• September 22, 2023: More than a month after learning that the $31.5 million constituted lawful tax payments in Canada, the CFTC specifically relied on Mr. Edelstein’s mischaracterization to argue that the SRO should continue to restrain all of Mr. Kazmi’s personal assets. “The evidence also shows substantial transfers from Traders Global’s corporate accounts to Mr. Kazmi. For example, between December 2022 and April 2023, $31.55 million was transferred from one of Traders Global’s corporate accounts in Canada to another account in Mr. Kazmi’s name."

• September 26, 2023: In their reply brief in support of their motion to modify the SRO, Defendants explained that the $31.5 million transfers were to Canadian tax authorities. Even after Defendants identified the CFTC’s error, the CFTC still did not correct it or acknowledge it to the Court or to Defendants.

• October 31, 2023: The CFTC filed a “corrected” declaration of another CFTC Investigator, Devin Malinowski, to correct “a typo” and to attach an exhibit that previously had been omitted. The CFTC did not correct Mr. Edelstein’s declaration.

• November 1, 2023: The CFTC informed Defendants that it “plan[s] to stand on Mr. Edelstein’s declaration for the PI hearing, and will not seek to supplement it, either in writing or via testimony at the hearing.” In response, Defendants insisted that Mr. Edelstein be present in court for cross-examination.

• November 6, 2023: During the PI Hearing, the CFTC’s counsel led Mr. Edelstein through a brief direct examination in which Mr. Edelstein testified (falsely) that he first learned of the $31.5 million error after the complaint and SRO application were filed. That was the only topic of direct examination for Mr. Edelstein.

• After direct examination of Mr. Edelstein, the Court asked the CFTC’s counsel: “Did you inform the defense of this change prior to today’s hearing?” Counsel responded: “No. Not expressly, Your Honor.” When the Court asked why not, counsel replied: “Counsel is aware of it. They apprised us of it in their response. After analysis, we believe that they were correct.” Contrary to the CFTC’s representation to the Court, the CFTC did not first learn of its error through Defendants; it knew of the error before the case even began.

• During cross-examination, the Court had the following exchange with CFTC counsel at a sidebar:

THE COURT: I’m trying to understand the timeline of this. You learned of this discrepancy, this mistake a week or two after the filing, and you didn’t inform the Court or defense counsel. They raised it in their papers? Because if that’s accurate, CFTC is going to be in a lot of trouble today. So please tell me that that’s not accurate what they’re implying on cross examination.

MR. BURDEN: Your Honor, I think it is correct that we --

THE COURT: You learned of it and didn’t tell the Court or defense counsel?

MR. BURDEN: Correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Why was that?

MR. BURDEN: Because, Your Honor, we considered that it was not material to the purpose of the declaration, and it was a small mischaracterization of this transfer that doesn’t relate to trading by --

THE COURT: Here’s the total in the chart, right? $32 million and change. The discrepancy is $31 and a half million. And you didn’t find that material? Is that really what you’re going to say? Because then you’re going to say it out there and not on sidebar.

MR. BURDEN: It is, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I’ll wait to hear from you later. Go back to cross-examination. You guys have a lot of explaining to do today. Get ready to do it.

• Counsel did not inform the Court at sidebar or otherwise that, in fact, both he and Mr. Edelstein knew about the error before filing the complaint and SRO application.

• December 1, 2023: In response to Defendants’ request to apportion the Temporary Receiver’s fees equally between Defendants and the CFTC, the CFTC informed Defendants and the Court for the first time that CFTC counsel and Mr. Edelstein knew as early as August 17, 2023 that $31.55 million transfers were lawful tax payments.

The record makes clear that counsel and Mr. Edelstein knew about the $31.5 million error before filing the complaint and the initial SRO application. That is, they knowingly submitted false information to the Court in support of their motion for a receiver and a total asset freeze. They then continued to rely on that same false information to oppose Defendants’ motion to narrow the scope of the asset freeze. And counsel led Mr. Edelstein through testimony during the PI Hearing they both knew to be false. It simply is not plausible that, in preparing Mr. Edelstein for his testimony at the PI Hearing—on the one topic covered on direct examination—that neither counsel nor Mr. Edelstein recalled that, in fact, they had received a clear, succinct email from the OSC notifying them about the true nature of the $31.5 million before even filing the SRO application. Nor did the CFTC even take it upon themselves to correct the record after the hearing. Had Defendants not filed the instant motion seeking apportionment of the receivership costs, the CFTC never would have come clean. In fact, had Defendants not insisted that Mr. Edelstein be present for cross-examination at the PI Hearing, none of this troubling conduct would have been revealed.

And that was not the only problematic misstatement in Mr. Edelstein’s declaration. The CFTC still has not provided any factual basis for Mr. Edelstein’s statement in his declaration that Mr. Kazmi had a non-custodial crypto wallet. The CFTC has not actually provided evidence, and the Court is aware of none, that Mr. Kazmi actually has (or ever had) a non-custodial cryptocurrency wallet. The basis (if any) for this assertion in Mr. Edelstein’s declaration is unclear.”.

Rather than square with these facts, the CFTC offers a meek apology and minimizes the import of its most serious error, claiming the mischaracterization of the $31.5 million was not “material” because “Mr. Edelstein’s declaration is seventeen pages long, and accurately summarizes hundreds of pages of financial records and tens of thousands of files of trading data.” This is classic misdirection. The information about the $31.5 million plainly was placed into Mr. Edelstein’s declaration to create the impression that Mr. Kazmi was looting Traders Global’s corporate accounts and to justify a freeze not only of the corporate assets, but of Mr. Kazmi’s personal assets. That misinformation—coupled with the baseless claim about Mr. Kazmi’s non-existent “non-custodial” crypto wallet—comprised the CFTC’s only purported evidence relevant to the need for a total asset freeze and the appointment of a temporary receiver, other than the vague, non particularized assertions that Mr. Kazmi lives in Canada and has spent money on luxury items. The Court has found that these barebones, conclusory assertions carry little (if any) weight. “The CFTC has provided scant particularized evidence that supports a finding that Defendants intend to dissipate any assets.”

The CFTC still fails to appreciate the consequences of its actions. It knowingly submitted a false declaration to the Court in support of an application to freeze all of Defendants’ assets and to impose a costly receivership on Defendants. And now, rather than candidly acknowledge its misconduct, the CFTC hides behind sovereign immunity and minimizes the impact of its misrepresentations. But sovereign immunity does not protect the CFTC here and, even if it did, the Court may exercise its inherent authority to require the CFTC to pay part of the receivership costs. The Court should reject strongly the notion that a government agency knowingly can submit false information ex parte to persuade a court to impose a costly receivership and then force a defendant to pay the entirety of the receivership’s costs. Equal apportionment of the temporary receiver’s fees is both reasonable and a legally cognizable remedy here in light of the CFTC’s conduct.

The CFTC....oh man, what a shit show.

Looks like U.S. government agencies think they can do whatever they want without any consequences.