🏒 Firm reviews

[Experience Report] My Main Strategy Was Buying Gold, Then a Huge Drawdown Hit | Why the Whole Operation Kept Running After Losing 5 Accounts in October [October 2026]

Published: 10/31/2026Updated: 10/31/2026

Note: the numbers in this article come from the site owner's challenge records and balance tracker on prop-memo. Account numbers and trading methods (time windows per instrument, stop distances, etc.) are not included.

TL;DR

  • In 2026 the site owner's main strategy was buying gold. Both EAs and discretionary trading put the most risk there
  • In October gold broke down, and five accounts carrying gold longs failed within one month (3 EA accounts, 2 discretionary)
  • Even so, all three funded accounts survived, and close to 20 evaluation accounts kept running. The operation as a whole never stopped
  • For 2026 as a whole, fees paid were Β₯3,786,404 + $3,820 against payouts of Β₯6,103,336 + $4,775. Payouts are still ahead even after the huge drawdown
  • What worked: splitting across firms, instruments, time windows, and long/short, and spreading small accounts across many firms instead of betting big on one
  • A main strategy eventually stops working. At the end of October the main strategy was switched from gold longs to index longs

The main strategy was buying gold

Gold in 2025-2026 was an almost one-way bull market. Both the site owner's EAs and discretionary trades put the most risk on gold longs.

  • Gold-long EAs ran on accounts at several firms, split by weekday and time window
  • On large yen-denominated accounts (Fintokei Sapphire), gold longs were held as discretionary swing trades
  • At firms that charge swap, swap-free accounts were chosen so longs could be held overnight

It was clear the main strategy leaned on one thing, but while the uptrend lasted this was the shape that earned the most.

October: the huge drawdown

In October gold broke down. Accounts carrying gold longs hit their max loss one after another.

DateFirmResultWhat lost
Oct 7FundingPips 2-Step $100KEvaluation β†’ failedGold-long EA
Oct 14Fintokei Sapphire (Β₯20M)Evaluation β†’ failedDiscretionary gold-long swing
Oct 21FundingPips 2-Step $100K (rebought)Evaluation β†’ failedGold-long EA
Oct 27E8 One $100KEvaluation β†’ failedGold-long EA
Oct 27Fintokei Sapphire (Β₯20M)Evaluation β†’ failedDiscretionary gold-long swing

Five accounts in one month. The fees lost were Β₯267,092 + $1,431. Another Fintokei account was also down βˆ’5.30% at the point all discretionary gold longs were closed.

Discretionary trading stopped here. The biggest losses came not from the EAs but from discretionary trades, caused by adding to longs with a bull-market mindset.

The operation still did not stop

At the end of October, after losing five accounts, the overall picture looked like this:

  • All three funded accounts survived. Either gold trading on them had been paused at the start of the month, or they carried other instruments
  • Close to 20 evaluation accounts kept running. Not one account on instruments with little relation to gold failed in October
  • For 2026 as a whole, payouts still exceed fees (table below)
JPYUSD
Total fees (including failed accounts)Β₯3,786,404$3,820
Total payoutsΒ₯6,103,336$4,775

The main strategy collapsed within a month, yet the accounts were not wiped out, because they had been split from the start as follows.

1. Split across firms

Accounts were held at more than ten firms. Bet big on one firm, and a single rule change, discretionary account closure, or misconfiguration stops everything. In 2026 conditions changed for reasons unrelated to the market more than once, such as "graduating for winning too much" (Funded7) or a notice capping risk per trade idea (FTMO).

2. Spread small accounts across many firms

There is eventually a ceiling on how much you can take out of any one firm. So rather than growing one firm's account, smaller accounts were held at each firm, taken up to the ceiling, then moved on. When one account fails, all that is lost is that account's fee.

3. One or two strategies per account, with instruments and time windows offset

Stack strategies on the same instrument in the same account and they all lose together on a bad day. With a different instrument and time window per account, the index and GBPJPY accounts kept running as usual even on days gold collapsed.

4. Pair longs with shorts

Some accounts paired a gold long with a gold short in a different time window. In an uptrend the short drags; in a collapse it holds things up. Some firms explicitly name "all trades in the same direction" as a problem behavior, so this pairing is also safer under the rules.

5. Absorb failures by rebuying

Losses at a prop firm are capped at the fee. Risk was taken close to the rule limits, and a failed account was rebought right away. Because a failure was treated as an expected cost rather than an accident, losing five accounts did not break the plan itself.

From gold longs to index longs

At the end of October the main strategy was rebuilt.

  • Gold longs were dropped as the main strategy. Their past results were measured in a bull market, and the foundation crumbles when the market changes
  • The new main strategy is index longs (Nasdaq and Nikkei), on the view that money keeps flowing into AI-related names
  • Gold stays, paired with shorts. Index longs and gold shorts barely move together, so the two main legs offset each other

The current main strategy will eventually stop working too. To keep the whole operation running when that happens, the practice of splitting by firm, instrument, time window, and direction continues.

Pitfalls hit along the way

During the drawdown there were also losses for reasons unrelated to the market.

  • Overlooked swap: an index long held over the weekend was charged an abnormally high swap set by the firm. Before opening a position you will hold over the weekend, check that firm's swap for that instrument
  • Overlooked commissions: some FX strategies lost 40-70% of their profit once commissions were included. Measure expected value including commissions
  • Floating-loss limit vs. stop distance: a strategy whose stop was wider than a firm's "floating loss of 1% is a violation" rule was placed on that account and triggered a violation. Before placing a strategy, check the firm's limit against its stop distance

Summary

  • When the main strategy leans on one thing, the month it breaks takes a big bite. For the site owner it was gold longs, and five accounts were lost in October
  • Even so, splitting by firm, account, instrument, time window, and direction kept the whole operation running, and total payouts still exceed fees
  • The biggest losses came from discretionary trading, caused by adding with a bull-market mindset. Discretionary trading has now stopped
  • Hold a main strategy assuming it will be replaced. The next one is index longs, but the splitting stays

Written by

Hosono P | the prop firm strategist

I buy challenges with my own money and record everything through to the payout. Recorded payouts: Β₯6.1M in total from Fintokei, Fundora and Funded7, plus $4,776 from The5ers (as of September 2026). Author of the semi-discretionary EA "ELDRA".

Profile and payout recordX @hosono_p

πŸ“šRelated articles

🏒

[Experience Report] The Full Record of My Funded7 Β₯2M Account | A Β₯10,530 Fee (Refunded) Turned Into Β₯1.15M in Payouts, Then 'Graduation' [September 2026]

This is the record the site owner kept, from starting an evaluation on a Funded7 2-phase Β₯2M account in March 2026 with a Β₯10,530 fee (half-off coupon, later refunded), through the account's closure in September. Covers how many days it took to pass Phase 1 and 2, the P&L on the two funded accounts, the dates and amounts of all 12 payouts, and the final settlement. The story of choosing the smallest account size on the assumption that "you can only get about Β₯1M out of any single firm" -- and ending up ahead of that estimate -- plus why you should operate on the assumption that a prop account will eventually end.

Firm reviews9/24/2026
🏒

BrightFunded, Measured: The Cheapest Loss-Room Unit Price on This Site β€” But That's the Price Before Add-Ons

Dubai-based BrightFunded, measured directly against the official comparison table and checkout across 3 plans and all 6 sizes on September 23, 2026. 2-Step Classic's fee per $1,000 of loss room is $57.0 β€” the cheapest of any plan listed on this site. But that price is before add-ons: +20% of the fee for a 90% profit split, +25% for weekly payouts, and stacking everything brings the total to 1.8x. On top of that, billing is in euros, and Trustpilot's rating is suspended while the official site keeps displaying '4.5.'

Firm reviews9/23/2026
🏒

Funded Trader Markets (FTM), Measured Directly | Martingale Officially Allowed and Among the Cheapest Per-Dollar-of-Drawdown, But No Track Record to Back It Up

I measured Dubai-based prop firm Funded Trader Markets directly on September 23, 2026, pulling list prices for 5 programs across every size from the official purchase configurator. The firm officially allows martingale and layering within a single account, permits EAs on every account and every phase, and even allows copying from accounts at other firms β€” an unusually permissive setup. Its fee per $1,000 of loss allowance on 2 Step Plus is $99.8, among the cheapest of any firm listed on this site. On the other hand, its Trustpilot rating is suspended after fake reviews were removed, its IP/VPN restrictions are among the strictest in the industry, and there are multiple places on its own site where the wording contradicts itself, like 'up to 100% profit' vs. 'Up to 90%.'

Firm reviews9/23/2026
🏒

MyFundedPerps Measured Firsthand | 3 Plans Are Rule-for-Rule Identical to Breakout Prop β€” the Difference Is Price and an Official API

On September 23, 2026, I measured every number for MyFundedPerps β€” the crypto perpetuals prop firm that joined the MyFundedFutures family β€” directly from the official site and documentation. The surprise: the profit target, max DD, and daily loss on its 3 plans match Breakout Prop's 3 plans exactly (9%/3%, 12%/5%, 10%/6%, daily loss 3% across the board). At list price it's 9% more expensive than Breakout; only during the 20% sale does it become 13% cheaper. The biggest differences are an official REST API and sandbox, and access to 127 symbols including gold and stocks. Track record, though, is close to zero β€” 37 Trustpilot reviews, profile opened September 2026 β€” and there's a trap where the max-loss line permanently locks to the starting balance after your first withdrawal.

Firm reviews9/23/2026
🏒

[Breaking] Moneta Funded Rebuilds Its 1-Step: 5% Trailing Max Loss, Instant Fail at 1% Open Loss, $100K Now $1,098 β€” Plus a New Daily-Payout 1-Step Daily; Support Confirms Self-Built EAs Are OK (October 2026)

Moneta Funded rebuilt its 1-Step in October 2026. Max loss changed from 6% static to 5% trailing, an open loss of 1% now fails the account instantly, and the $100K price went from $780 to $1,098. A new 1-Step Daily with a 3% target and daily payouts was added. The prohibited-practices page reads like it bans even self-built EAs, but support confirmed in writing that self-built fully automated EAs are allowed (not martingale, grid and the like). Accounts bought before the change keep the old rules.

Firm reviews10/12/2026
🏒

[Breaking] FundingPips Significantly Relaxes Its Rules: Betting Big on One Trade, Holding Floating Losses, and Passing on a Single Big Win Are All Now OK β€” Existing Accounts Keep the Old Rules (September 28, 2026)

FundingPips significantly relaxed its rules on September 28, 2026. As long as you stay within the daily loss and max loss limits, it's now fine to bet big on a single trade, hold floating losses, or pass with one big win. Minimum trading days now starts from 0. This applies only to accounts purchased on or after September 28 on 1 Step Flex, 2 Step Flex, 2 Step Pro, and 2 Step Standard β€” accounts you already have keep the old rules.

Firm reviews9/28/2026