FundingPips Defends Account Closures Amid Shared Device Fingerprint Dispute
A heated debate has erupted within the proprietary trading community after FundingPips publicly defended its decision to close several trader accounts over an alleged shared device fingerprint violation. The controversy intensified after industry watchdog Prop Firm Report challenged the firm’s explanation and called for greater transparency.
FundingPips Explains Its Decision
In a statement posted on X (formerly Twitter), Avikk of FundingPips rejected claims that the firm had acted without sufficient evidence.
According to Avikk, all of the accounts referenced in the ongoing dispute belonged to the same trader except for account 20048552, which he claimed belonged to a different individual.
He questioned how two supposedly unrelated traders could have been linked to the same device fingerprint, arguing that such a match could not reasonably occur by chance.
FundingPips stated that its investigation detected a shared Client ID (CID) violation, which it considers a breach of its trading rules. As a result, the firm refunded the evaluation fees paid for the affected accounts before permanently closing them.
Avikk also announced a policy change, stating that FundingPips will no longer issue refunds in future cases involving similar violations. He added that the company intends to publicly identify individuals found abusing its systems in an effort to discourage repeat offenses across the prop trading industry.
Prop Firm Report Questions the Evidence
The explanation was quickly challenged by Prop Firm Report, which argued that the screenshot shared by FundingPips did not conclusively support the firm’s claims.
According to the publication, the image only displayed technical information such as an IP address, Client Build, Client ID (CID), and account numbers. It did not identify the owner of account 20048552, making it impossible for the public to independently verify FundingPips’ conclusion.
Prop Firm Report questioned whether additional context had been omitted or whether the screenshot alone was being presented as proof of ownership.
The publication emphasized that publicly accusing traders of rule violations requires verifiable evidence rather than assumptions, especially when reputations and potential payouts are at stake.
Unanswered Questions Remain
Beyond disputing the screenshot, Prop Firm Report said several key questions remain unanswered.
Among them are why the trader’s first account was approved if a violation already existed, why the alleged breach was only detected after multiple profitable accounts had successfully passed evaluation, and why the trader’s accounts were closed without an apparent opportunity to appeal the decision.
The publication suggested that if FundingPips possesses evidence containing sensitive information that cannot be shared publicly, it could instead be provided privately to the trader involved for independent review. Doing so, it argued, would help ensure fairness while protecting confidential information.
A Wider Industry Debate
The exchange has reignited discussion about how proprietary trading firms investigate and enforce rule violations.
Many firms now rely on technical identifiers such as IP addresses, device fingerprints, Client IDs, and browser information to detect account sharing, multi-account abuse, and other prohibited activities. While these tools can strengthen fraud prevention, traders continue to call for clearer explanations, transparent evidence, and structured appeal processes when accounts are suspended or closed.
On the other hand, firms argue that revealing the full details of their fraud detection methods could make it easier for individuals to bypass security systems and exploit evaluation programs.
As discussions continue across the trading community, the FundingPips case highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing effective fraud prevention with transparency and due process. Whether additional evidence will be released remains uncertain, but the dispute has already sparked renewed debate over accountability and trust within the prop trading industry.
