MAANEA

and this is not the first payout with @upcomers_com the first request was also a $990 payout on the 23rd of june but instead i was only paid 25% of the total payout requested. Images attached see for yourself. Total payout requested over 2 periods is $1980 only got $247.50

Their reply called it "a dramatic escalation... reflecting cumulative loss" instead. That's a broader, different standard than the one they've actually published — and it happened to land on the two biggest winning trades in the account.@upcomers_com @JakubUPC

@upcomers_com rejected my $990 payout on a $100k Oracle Instant account and reset it to zero — despite $2,614.07 in verified profit across 15 trades. Their compliance team actually engaged in real detail on my appeal. Here's where I still think it doesn't hold up. 🧵

I’m not avoiding anything. You’re asking me to explain how Upcomers enforce their internal rules. I’m not Upcomers. My job as a media page was to verify whether the payout was rejected without a reason or whether the firm had a legitimate basis for its decision. We contacted the firm, reviewed their explanation and the trading history, and there was a clear reason behind the rejection. That’s what I reported. If you want to know why they considered 14 BUYs and 1 SELL a breach, or what criteria they use to classify a trading pattern as martingale, those are questions for Upcomers, not for me. There’s a difference between “I disagree with the rule” and “the firm scammed the trader.” Those aren’t the same thing , hope you understand this?

@trustedprophub @upcomers_com @JakubUPC Upcomers is a scam loud and clear their is nothing before after

@trustedprophub @upcomers_com @JakubUPC • One-Sided Betting – Out of 15 trades, 14 were BUYs and only 1 was a SELL, which falls under their One-Sided Betting policy. - WTF?? So you should short too when markets are going upsides?? 😂🤡

Update on recent Upcomers Case 🚨 Everyone wants transparency from prop firms. Fair enough. But traders also need to be fair before making serious accusations. We reviewed the recent @upcomers_com payout case after seeing the claims on X. Instead of relying on one side, we contacted the firm directly and asked for a detailed explanation. After reviewing the account, the payout wasn’t rejected without a reason. According to the firm’s review, the account breached two trading rules: • One-Sided Betting – Out of 15 trades, 14 were BUYs and only 1 was a SELL, which falls under their One-Sided Betting policy. • Martingale – The firm also identified a risk escalation pattern where position size increased significantly after a series of losing trades, which they classified as martingale under their rules. help.upcomers.com/en/articles/12… help.upcomers.com/en/articles/12… Whether you personally agree with these rules is your choice. Every trader is free to decide which prop firm they want to trade with. But calling a firm a “scam” without reviewing both sides of the story only hurts the industry and spreads misinformation. If you’re going to expose a firm, make sure you’ve checked the facts first. That’s exactly what we’ll continue doing as a media page. #Trustedprophub ✍🏼

🚨 PAYOUT DISPUTE: Upcomers denies $990 payout and resets $100K funded account. Another payout dispute has surfaced in the prop firm industry. A trader @TheDonGuzman has publicly alleged that Upcomers denied a $990 payout and reset a $100,000 funded account, despite recording $2,614.07 in profits across 15 trades. According to @upcomers_com , the trading activity was classified as one-sided betting after reviewing an account that placed 14 BUY trades and 1 SELL trade on XAUUSD. The firm also identified two trades it considered martingale-related, resulting in the payout being rejected and the funded account being reset. The trader strongly disputes those findings. He argues the account simply followed Gold’s prevailing uptrend, with the lone SELL position taken during the week’s primary pullback. He also says the losing positions were not progressively increased in size and that the trades cited by the firm were opened hours later at different price levels, making them independent entries rather than a martingale sequence. The dispute raises broader questions that extend beyond a single account. How does Upcomers distinguish legitimate trend-following from prohibited one-sided betting? What objective criteria determine whether a trade sequence is classified as martingale? And could traders using similar discretionary strategies face the same outcome? @upcomers_com @JakubUPC @evcawolfCZ PropWatch has reached out to Upcomers for comment. If the firm responds, we’ll publish their statement in full.

Another trader payout was denied by @upcomers_com using a false accusation. This trader $990 payout was denied and his $100K funded account was reset despite earning $2,614 in verified profit across 15 trades at UPCOMERS. They claimed he was engaged in "One-sided betting". Hey @JakubUPC – this trader didn’t take excessive risk; he simply followed the trend. Is following the trend a violation NOW?

A trader has asked me to share their experience with @Upcomers. Their payout was denied after review, with the firm citing “one-sided trading” and “martingale.” The screenshots of the email and trade history are attached. @Upcomers, would you like to publicly clarify this case?

Scam Alert ⚠️ @upcomers_com Scam exposed⬇️ The trader was trading a $100,000 funded Oracle Instant account with @upcomers_com reports that the firm denied a $990 payout despite $2,614.07 in verified profits generated across only 15 trades. Following the denial, Upcomers fully reset the account to zero, resulting in the complete loss of the accumulated profits and the funded account access. Key Alleged Violations Cited by Upcomers and the Trader's Rebuttals One-Sided Betting Violation @upcomers_com reportedly flagged the trading activity as one sided betting due to 14 buy trades versus 1 sell trade on XAUUSD. The trader explains that gold prices rose steadily from approximately $3,984 to $4,077 during that week. The single sell trade was executed precisely during the only notable multi-day pullback in that period. According to the trader, this reflects standard market-following behavior aligned with price action rather than biased or reckless positioning. Martingale Violation The firm allegedly identified two trades totaling $759 as evidence of Martingale style doubling after losses. The trader counters that the four losing trades earlier that morning were executed with flat lot sizing (0.07, 0.07, 0.08, and 0.07 lots, showing no position doubling. Furthermore, the flagged trades were opened approximately six hours later at entirely new price levels, indicating they were independent entries rather than recovery attempts following losses. The trader maintains that the trading activity complied with proper risk management and market logic, while Upcomers’ classifications led to the payout rejection and account termination. @JakubUPC @propfirmmatch @TheTrustedProp.

Result: full account wipe, $990 payout denied, $2,614 in profit gone. Full trade history below — screenshots don't lie. Search "Upcomers payout denied" and you'll find this isn't a one-off story. #PropFirm #ForexTrading #TradingCommunity

Two OTHER trades that same day were the same size, same session, and closed at the exact same second as the "martingale" ones.Just... not flagged. @JakubUPC @trustedprophub

@upcomers_com denied my $990 payout on a $100k Oracle Instant account and reset it to zero — despite $2,614.07 in verified profit across 15 trades. Here's their reasoning, and why it doesn't add up. @trustedprophub @PropFirmMatch