[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]
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.
| Date | Firm | Result | What lost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 7 | FundingPips 2-Step $100K | Evaluation β failed | Gold-long EA |
| Oct 14 | Fintokei Sapphire (Β₯20M) | Evaluation β failed | Discretionary gold-long swing |
| Oct 21 | FundingPips 2-Step $100K (rebought) | Evaluation β failed | Gold-long EA |
| Oct 27 | E8 One $100K | Evaluation β failed | Gold-long EA |
| Oct 27 | Fintokei Sapphire (Β₯20M) | Evaluation β failed | Discretionary gold-long swing |
Five accounts in one month. The fees lost were Β₯267,092 + $1,431. Another Fintokei account was also down β5.30% 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)
| JPY | USD | |
|---|---|---|
| Total fees (including failed accounts) | Β₯3,786,404 | $3,820 |
| Total payouts | Β₯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
Related articles
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".