Prop Firm Risk Watch - Scam Alerts & High Risk List

Updated: March 21, 2026

We built this page for one reason: to help U.S. traders avoid scams and needless blow‑ups. Below you’ll find our Risk Scale (1–5), how we assign risk, how often we re‑assess, and a running list of Known Scam and High‑Risk firms with evidence. Our goal is simple: clear, fair, and sourced information so you can decide with confidence.

**Transparency & Risk Notice** This page contains opinion‑based risk assessments supported by public information and our review methodology. Trading involves significant risk of loss. Always conduct your own due diligence before acting on any information. Full disclosure here.

Our 1–5 Risk Scale (What the labels mean)

• 1 — Known Scam / Do Not Use
  What triggers this: Documented non‑payment pattern plus credible evidence (e.g., formal closure/insolvency, legal/regulatory actions, or a verified, broad pattern of ignored payouts). We include sources for every claim.

• 2 — Extremely High Risk
  Unresolved payout disputes, frequent retroactive rule changes, opaque ownership/jurisdiction, or legal warnings—not yet at the “Known Scam” threshold, but serious reasons to avoid.

• 3 — Legitimate but Elevated Risk
  The firm is operating and paying but has material risk factors that can burn traders (e.g., harsh or unclear rules, thin disclosures, erratic support, payout caps/locking mechanics that surprise new traders).

• 4 — Recommended with Caveats
  Generally pays and communicates well, but there are 1–2 rules that must be called out clearly (e.g., strict consistency formulas or timing windows). We highlight these so you can decide if the caveat fits your style.

• 5 — Best‑in‑Class Transparency
  Long, consistent payout track record, prominently explained rules, stable operations, and proactive communication of changes. This is the benchmark we hold firms to.

How We Assign Risk (the short version)

To keep this page consistent with our published methodology, we add a risk‑only lens focused on payout reliability and terms clarity (this is separate from our feature/value rankings):

Risk dimensions & weights

• Payout Reliability & History — 35% (verified withdrawals, timeliness, dispute handling)
• Terms Transparency & Hidden Rules — 25% (clear, prominent rule explanations: e.g., minimum hold times, consistency formulas, copier/HFT limits, news windows, payout caps)
• Regulatory/Legal Posture — 20% (entity clarity, jurisdiction, regulatory warnings/enforcement)
• Operational Integrity — 10% (platform/data‑feed stability, KYC/payout rails, published changelogs for rule updates)
• Reputation & Community Signal — 10% (multi‑month sentiment, only when corroborated by primary sources)

Evidence standards
We prioritize primary sources (official help centers/ToS, firm announcements, court/regulatory documents). Community reports only influence scores when independently verified. We archive links/screenshots for transparency.
For the full picture of how our reviews work across the site, see [General Review Process] and [Full Methodology & Affiliate Transparency Guide].

Re‑Assessment Policy (When we re‑score risk)

• Cadence: We re‑assess quarterly.
• Faster path: If a firm contacts us with a disagreement and provides credible evidence, we’ll review off‑cycle and publish the outcome.
• Transparency: Every change appears in the Changelog at the bottom of this page with dates and a one‑line reason.

(Why not daily? Because risk signals need to be verified, not chased. Quarterly keeps us current without amplifying noise.)

We will give a pending outcome statement if a firm has asked for a re-evaluate and has credible evidence or has asked for a stay during the re-evaluation process. This will be updated when staff has the the ability to work on each case and is at the description of  

How to Use This Page:

Note: We’re publishing the framework first. Our next step is adding firms with evidence, starting with the most reported high‑risk names. Check the Change log for when entries go live, located in the detail cards of the interested firm. 

Scan the Quick List to see current risk calls at a glance.

Open firm cards for specifics: clear “Why this rating,” rule caveats (if any), and evidence links.

Disagree or have proof? Submit a correction or appeal (form below). If your evidence holds, we’ll re‑assess before the next quarterly cycle, when available, and may change the firms status as pending, while keeping to full-transparency. All detail cards are listed below this table. (We are actively updating our website, currently working on basic structure please be patient while we build the website out. We are a group of traders hoping to help other traders find success!)

Appeals & Re‑Evaluation Requests

If you are a website owner or an authorized representative of a firm that currently holds a Risk Assessment score of 3 or below and wish to file an appeal, correction, or request a re‑evaluation, please complete the form below in full.

To be considered, your submission must include all of the following:

1. Your full name
2. Your current position/role within the firm you represent
3. A valid contact phone number
4. A response email address
5. Clear evidence or supporting information showing what you believe is inaccurate, incorrect, outdated, or why a re‑evaluation is warranted

Submissions that are missing any required information will be automatically denied and will not be reviewed.
Only authorized firm representatives may request re‑evaluation.

Once a complete request is submitted, our team will review the evidence, determine whether a correction or update is appropriate, and—if supported—apply changes during our next quarterly review cycle unless the issue qualifies for an off‑cycle correction under our Transparency Policy.