Crypto Fund Trader

Great experience, I got my payout without any problems

Great experience, I got my payout without any problems

Real payout Prob firm cryptofund trader

Real payout Prob firm cryptofund trader

Very nice dashboard, bybit connection works very well. Got my second payout today. Customer service always on point. Can absolutely recommend this firm, they are legit!

Very nice dashboard, bybit connection works very well. Got my second payout today. Customer service always on point. Can absolutely recommend this firm, they are legit!

fast and very good service

fast and very good service

I am a long-standing client of CFT and have previously used the platform without issues. After completing all trading requirements, I requested my first 7.4k payout, which was denied due to an “IP match” with another account. CFT confirmed that even in mobile networks using CGNAT - where multiple unrelated users share the same public IP - an IP match alone is considered a violation, regardless of the cause. This effectively places responsibility on the user to avoid IP overlap. In mobile and roaming environments, this is technically impossible to control: public IPs are dynamically assigned and shared without the user’s knowledge or influence. In my case: No shared devices (different CID) Different client builds Different latency values (indicating different network paths/locations) No overlapping sessions No coordinated trading behavior Sessions associated with the same IP occurred several days apart The flagged IP was linked only to a login event; trading was performed from my stable home network Additionally, I contacted support before trading and was explicitly told that switching between Wi-Fi and mobile data is allowed. I acted in good faith based on that guidance. I have also reviewed an anonymized case where an IP overlap occurred under a fixed Wi-Fi connection - generally easier to associate with a specific user than mobile roaming - and no payout penalty was applied in that case. This raises concerns about consistency of enforcement. Conclusion: The decision relies on a technically unreliable signal (shared IP) without corroborating behavioral or device-level evidence, and enforces a requirement that users cannot realistically comply with. If you use mobile data or roaming at any point, you may be exposed to payout denial due to factors entirely outside of your control. Be aware of this risk before using the platform. Update based on CFT response: CFT responded by confirming that: They acknowledge CGNAT/shared IP environments exist They acknowledge the IP overlap may not uniquely identify a user They acknowledge there was no evidence of shared devices, coordinated trading, or overlapping sessions However, they still state that an IP match alone is sufficient for payout denial, regardless of cause or technical context. This means the platform effectively enforces a rule that users cannot realistically comply with in mobile or roaming environments, while placing full responsibility on the trader. Most importantly, the response does not explain: How users are expected to avoid uncontrollable CGNAT IP overlap Why login activity alone is treated the same as trading activity Why no behavioral or device-level evidence was required Why similar cases appear to be treated differently At this point, the issue is no longer whether CGNAT exists - even CFT acknowledged that it does. The issue is that users can lose payouts due to factors outside of their control, even when there is no evidence of account sharing or coordinated behavior.

I am a long-standing client of CFT and have previously used the platform without issues. After completing all trading requirements, I requested my first 7.4k payout, which was denied due to an “IP match” with another account. CFT confirmed that even in mobile networks using CGNAT - where multiple unrelated users share the same public IP - an IP match alone is considered a violation, regardless of the cause. This effectively places responsibility on the user to avoid IP overlap. In mobile and roaming environments, this is technically impossible to control: public IPs are dynamically assigned and shared without the user’s knowledge or influence. In my case: No shared devices (different CID) Different client builds Different latency values (indicating different network paths/locations) No overlapping sessions No coordinated trading behavior Sessions associated with the same IP occurred several days apart The flagged IP was linked only to a login event; trading was performed from my stable home network Additionally, I contacted support before trading and was explicitly told that switching between Wi-Fi and mobile data is allowed. I acted in good faith based on that guidance. I have also reviewed an anonymized case where an IP overlap occurred under a fixed Wi-Fi connection - generally easier to associate with a specific user than mobile roaming - and no payout penalty was applied in that case. This raises concerns about consistency of enforcement. Conclusion: The decision relies on a technically unreliable signal (shared IP) without corroborating behavioral or device-level evidence, and enforces a requirement that users cannot realistically comply with. If you use mobile data or roaming at any point, you may be exposed to payout denial due to factors entirely outside of your control. Be aware of this risk before using the platform. Update based on CFT response: CFT responded by confirming that: They acknowledge CGNAT/shared IP environments exist They acknowledge the IP overlap may not uniquely identify a user They acknowledge there was no evidence of shared devices, coordinated trading, or overlapping sessions However, they still state that an IP match alone is sufficient for payout denial, regardless of cause or technical context. This means the platform effectively enforces a rule that users cannot realistically comply with in mobile or roaming environments, while placing full responsibility on the trader. Most importantly, the response does not explain: How users are expected to avoid uncontrollable CGNAT IP overlap Why login activity alone is treated the same as trading activity Why no behavioral or device-level evidence was required Why similar cases appear to be treated differently At this point, the issue is no longer whether CGNAT exists - even CFT acknowledged that it does. The issue is that users can lose payouts due to factors outside of their control, even when there is no evidence of account sharing or coordinated behavior.