u/theanonymoustraderIN

THEIR EVIDENCE - https://x.com/ErkanOriginal/status/2082016574744224243

MY COUNTER - https://x.com/theanonymous_IN/status/2082476230746771690

🚨 THE COMPLETE FUNDINGPIPS CID TIMELINE — FROM ALLEGATION TO TODAY

For those who have followed my case, here is the full timeline in one post.

📅 17 July
I publicly questioned my FundingPips termination and asked a simple question:

"What evidence was used to terminate my account?"

Instead of receiving verifiable proof, I was met with generic responses and told the decision was final.

📅 17–28 July
For 17 days I continued asking the same questions publicly:

❓What is the evidence?

❓What account was supposedly involved?

❓How was the CID violation determined?

❓Why was my account terminated?

No detailed explanation was provided.

📅 28 July
FundingPips finally released what they called "evidence."

According to their claim:

⚠️ My device had logged into another trader's account.

⚠️ The account allegedly had a Swiss connection.

⚠️ They concluded it was the "same device."

📅 29 July
I responded with my own evidence:

✅ MT5 login records

✅ Complete MT5 journal history

✅ Counter-analysis of their claims

✅ Direct response to the alleged Swiss connection

After reviewing everything, the only Swiss connection I could identify was Duplikium, a Switzerland-based copy trading platform I used while managing my 3 × $100K evaluation accounts.

But that raises an obvious question:

❓ How does a Swiss service automatically become proof of the same physical device?

A Swiss connection ≠ Same device.

📅 Evidence Contradiction

FundingPips claimed my device accessed another trader's account approximately 5 months earlier.

However:

✅ The account they referenced was reviewed by FundingPips.

✅ The account was approved by FundingPips.

✅ I was later promoted to a Master Account.

If a serious device-sharing violation existed, why was the account approved and promoted?

📅 MT5 Log Issue

I reviewed the entire MT5 log period they referred to.

My account appears throughout the logs.

The alleged account does not appear anywhere in my MT5 journals.

This created another question:

❓ If the login occurred, why doesn't it appear in the MT5 records covering that period?

📅 Current Situation

After I published:

✅ MT5 logs

✅ Counter-evidence

✅ Timeline inconsistencies

✅ Questions regarding the "same device" conclusion

I again contacted support.

The response?

📌 Decision final.

📌 No response to the counter-evidence.

📌 No explanation of how "same device" was determined.

📌 No response to the MT5 log contradiction.

📅 Today

The dispute is no longer about whether FundingPips can investigate traders.

The dispute is about transparency.

My questions remain:

❓ How was "same device" determined?

❓ Why doesn't the alleged login appear in my MT5 logs?

❓ Why was the account approved and promoted if the violation already existed?

❓ Why are questions about the counter-evidence being ignored?

❓ Why should traders accept serious allegations without seeing verifiable evidence?

Until these questions are answered, the concerns surrounding the CID evidence remain unresolved.

#FundingPips #PropFirm #Forex #Trading #Payout #Transparency #CID #PropTrading #FundedTrader #ForexTrading

🚨 THE COMPLETE FUNDINGPIPS CID TIMELINE — FROM ALLEGATION TO TODAY

For those who have followed my case, here is the full timeline in one post.

📅 17 July
I publicly questioned my FundingPips termination and asked a simple question:

"What evidence was used to terminate my account?"

Instead of receiving verifiable proof, I was met with generic responses and told the decision was final.

📅 17–28 July
For 17 days I continued asking the same questions publicly:

❓What is the evidence?

❓What account was supposedly involved?

❓How was the CID violation determined?

❓Why was my account terminated?

No detailed explanation was provided.

📅 28 July
FundingPips finally released what they called "evidence."

According to their claim:

⚠️ My device had logged into another trader's account.

⚠️ The account allegedly had a Swiss connection.

⚠️ They concluded it was the "same device."

📅 29 July
I responded with my own evidence:

✅ MT5 login records

✅ Complete MT5 journal history

✅ Counter-analysis of their claims

✅ Direct response to the alleged Swiss connection

After reviewing everything, the only Swiss connection I could identify was Duplikium, a Switzerland-based copy trading platform I used while managing my 3 × $100K evaluation accounts.

But that raises an obvious question:

❓ How does a Swiss service automatically become proof of the same physical device?

A Swiss connection ≠ Same device.

📅 Evidence Contradiction

FundingPips claimed my device accessed another trader's account approximately 5 months earlier.

However:

✅ The account they referenced was reviewed by FundingPips.

✅ The account was approved by FundingPips.

✅ I was later promoted to a Master Account.

If a serious device-sharing violation existed, why was the account approved and promoted?

📅 MT5 Log Issue

I reviewed the entire MT5 log period they referred to.

My account appears throughout the logs.

The alleged account does not appear anywhere in my MT5 journals.

This created another question:

❓ If the login occurred, why doesn't it appear in the MT5 records covering that period?

📅 Current Situation

After I published:

✅ MT5 logs

✅ Counter-evidence

✅ Timeline inconsistencies

✅ Questions regarding the "same device" conclusion

I again contacted support.

The response?

📌 Decision final.

📌 No response to the counter-evidence.

📌 No explanation of how "same device" was determined.

📌 No response to the MT5 log contradiction.

📅 Today

The dispute is no longer about whether FundingPips can investigate traders.

The dispute is about transparency.

My questions remain:

❓ How was "same device" determined?

❓ Why doesn't the alleged login appear in my MT5 logs?

❓ Why was the account approved and promoted if the violation already existed?

❓ Why are questions about the counter-evidence being ignored?

❓ Why should traders accept serious allegations without seeing verifiable evidence?

Until these questions are answered, the concerns surrounding the CID evidence remain unresolved.

#FundingPips #PropFirm #Forex #Trading #Payout #Transparency #CID #PropTrading #FundedTrader #ForexTrading

THEIR EVIDENCE - https://x.com/ErkanOriginal/status/2082016574744224243

MY COUNTER - https://x.com/theanonymous_IN/status/2082476230746771690

🚨 THE COMPLETE FUNDINGPIPS CID TIMELINE — FROM ALLEGATION TO TODAY

For those who have followed my case, here is the full timeline in one post.

📅 17 July
I publicly questioned my FundingPips termination and asked a simple question:

"What evidence was used to terminate my account?"

Instead of receiving verifiable proof, I was met with generic responses and told the decision was final.

📅 17–28 July
For 17 days I continued asking the same questions publicly:

❓What is the evidence?

❓What account was supposedly involved?

❓How was the CID violation determined?

❓Why was my account terminated?

No detailed explanation was provided.

📅 28 July
FundingPips finally released what they called "evidence."

According to their claim:

⚠️ My device had logged into another trader's account.

⚠️ The account allegedly had a Swiss connection.

⚠️ They concluded it was the "same device."

📅 29 July
I responded with my own evidence:

✅ MT5 login records

✅ Complete MT5 journal history

✅ Counter-analysis of their claims

✅ Direct response to the alleged Swiss connection

After reviewing everything, the only Swiss connection I could identify was Duplikium, a Switzerland-based copy trading platform I used while managing my 3 × $100K evaluation accounts.

But that raises an obvious question:

❓ How does a Swiss service automatically become proof of the same physical device?

A Swiss connection ≠ Same device.

📅 Evidence Contradiction

FundingPips claimed my device accessed another trader's account approximately 5 months earlier.

However:

✅ The account they referenced was reviewed by FundingPips.

✅ The account was approved by FundingPips.

✅ I was later promoted to a Master Account.

If a serious device-sharing violation existed, why was the account approved and promoted?

📅 MT5 Log Issue

I reviewed the entire MT5 log period they referred to.

My account appears throughout the logs.

The alleged account does not appear anywhere in my MT5 journals.

This created another question:

❓ If the login occurred, why doesn't it appear in the MT5 records covering that period?

📅 Current Situation

After I published:

✅ MT5 logs

✅ Counter-evidence

✅ Timeline inconsistencies

✅ Questions regarding the "same device" conclusion

I again contacted support.

The response?

📌 Decision final.

📌 No response to the counter-evidence.

📌 No explanation of how "same device" was determined.

📌 No response to the MT5 log contradiction.

📅 Today

The dispute is no longer about whether FundingPips can investigate traders.

The dispute is about transparency.

My questions remain:

❓ How was "same device" determined?

❓ Why doesn't the alleged login appear in my MT5 logs?

❓ Why was the account approved and promoted if the violation already existed?

❓ Why are questions about the counter-evidence being ignored?

❓ Why should traders accept serious allegations without seeing verifiable evidence?

Until these questions are answered, the concerns surrounding the CID evidence remain unresolved.

#FundingPips #PropFirm #Forex #Trading #Payout #Transparency #CID #PropTrading #FundedTrader #ForexTrading

THEIR EVIDENCE - https://x.com/ErkanOriginal/status/2082016574744224243

MY COUNTER - https://x.com/theanonymous_IN/status/2082476230746771690

🚨 THE COMPLETE FUNDINGPIPS CID TIMELINE — FROM ALLEGATION TO TODAY

For those who have followed my case, here is the full timeline in one post.

📅 17 July
I publicly questioned my FundingPips termination and asked a simple question:

"What evidence was used to terminate my account?"

Instead of receiving verifiable proof, I was met with generic responses and told the decision was final.

📅 17–28 July
For 17 days I continued asking the same questions publicly:

❓What is the evidence?

❓What account was supposedly involved?

❓How was the CID violation determined?

❓Why was my account terminated?

No detailed explanation was provided.

📅 28 July
FundingPips finally released what they called "evidence."

According to their claim:

⚠️ My device had logged into another trader's account.

⚠️ The account allegedly had a Swiss connection.

⚠️ They concluded it was the "same device."

📅 29 July
I responded with my own evidence:

✅ MT5 login records

✅ Complete MT5 journal history

✅ Counter-analysis of their claims

✅ Direct response to the alleged Swiss connection

After reviewing everything, the only Swiss connection I could identify was Duplikium, a Switzerland-based copy trading platform I used while managing my 3 × $100K evaluation accounts.

But that raises an obvious question:

❓ How does a Swiss service automatically become proof of the same physical device?

A Swiss connection ≠ Same device.

📅 Evidence Contradiction

FundingPips claimed my device accessed another trader's account approximately 5 months earlier.

However:

✅ The account they referenced was reviewed by FundingPips.

✅ The account was approved by FundingPips.

✅ I was later promoted to a Master Account.

If a serious device-sharing violation existed, why was the account approved and promoted?

📅 MT5 Log Issue

I reviewed the entire MT5 log period they referred to.

My account appears throughout the logs.

The alleged account does not appear anywhere in my MT5 journals.

This created another question:

❓ If the login occurred, why doesn't it appear in the MT5 records covering that period?

📅 Current Situation

After I published:

✅ MT5 logs

✅ Counter-evidence

✅ Timeline inconsistencies

✅ Questions regarding the "same device" conclusion

I again contacted support.

The response?

📌 Decision final.

📌 No response to the counter-evidence.

📌 No explanation of how "same device" was determined.

📌 No response to the MT5 log contradiction.

📅 Today

The dispute is no longer about whether FundingPips can investigate traders.

The dispute is about transparency.

My questions remain:

❓ How was "same device" determined?

❓ Why doesn't the alleged login appear in my MT5 logs?

❓ Why was the account approved and promoted if the violation already existed?

❓ Why are questions about the counter-evidence being ignored?

❓ Why should traders accept serious allegations without seeing verifiable evidence?

Until these questions are answered, the concerns surrounding the CID evidence remain unresolved.

#FundingPips #PropFirm #Forex #Trading #Payout #Transparency #CID #PropTrading #FundedTrader #ForexTrading

THEIR EVIDENCE - https://x.com/ErkanOriginal/status/2082016574744224243

MY COUNTER - https://x.com/theanonymous_IN/status/2082476230746771690

🚨 THE COMPLETE FUNDINGPIPS CID TIMELINE — FROM ALLEGATION TO TODAY

For those who have followed my case, here is the full timeline in one post.

📅 17 July
I publicly questioned my FundingPips termination and asked a simple question:

"What evidence was used to terminate my account?"

Instead of receiving verifiable proof, I was met with generic responses and told the decision was final.

📅 17–28 July
For 17 days I continued asking the same questions publicly:

❓What is the evidence?

❓What account was supposedly involved?

❓How was the CID violation determined?

❓Why was my account terminated?

No detailed explanation was provided.

📅 28 July
FundingPips finally released what they called "evidence."

According to their claim:

⚠️ My device had logged into another trader's account.

⚠️ The account allegedly had a Swiss connection.

⚠️ They concluded it was the "same device."

📅 29 July
I responded with my own evidence:

✅ MT5 login records

✅ Complete MT5 journal history

✅ Counter-analysis of their claims

✅ Direct response to the alleged Swiss connection

After reviewing everything, the only Swiss connection I could identify was Duplikium, a Switzerland-based copy trading platform I used while managing my 3 × $100K evaluation accounts.

But that raises an obvious question:

❓ How does a Swiss service automatically become proof of the same physical device?

A Swiss connection ≠ Same device.

📅 Evidence Contradiction

FundingPips claimed my device accessed another trader's account approximately 5 months earlier.

However:

✅ The account they referenced was reviewed by FundingPips.

✅ The account was approved by FundingPips.

✅ I was later promoted to a Master Account.

If a serious device-sharing violation existed, why was the account approved and promoted?

📅 MT5 Log Issue

I reviewed the entire MT5 log period they referred to.

My account appears throughout the logs.

The alleged account does not appear anywhere in my MT5 journals.

This created another question:

❓ If the login occurred, why doesn't it appear in the MT5 records covering that period?

📅 Current Situation

After I published:

✅ MT5 logs

✅ Counter-evidence

✅ Timeline inconsistencies

✅ Questions regarding the "same device" conclusion

I again contacted support.

The response?

📌 Decision final.

📌 No response to the counter-evidence.

📌 No explanation of how "same device" was determined.

📌 No response to the MT5 log contradiction.

📅 Today

The dispute is no longer about whether FundingPips can investigate traders.

The dispute is about transparency.

My questions remain:

❓ How was "same device" determined?

❓ Why doesn't the alleged login appear in my MT5 logs?

❓ Why was the account approved and promoted if the violation already existed?

❓ Why are questions about the counter-evidence being ignored?

❓ Why should traders accept serious allegations without seeing verifiable evidence?

Until these questions are answered, the concerns surrounding the CID evidence remain unresolved.

#FundingPips #PropFirm #Forex #Trading #Payout #Transparency #CID #PropTrading #FundedTrader #ForexTrading

THEIR EVIDENCE - https://x.com/ErkanOriginal/status/2082016574744224243

MY COUNTER - https://x.com/theanonymous_IN/status/2082476230746771690

🚨 THE COMPLETE FUNDINGPIPS CID TIMELINE — FROM ALLEGATION TO TODAY

For those who have followed my case, here is the full timeline in one post.

📅 17 July
I publicly questioned my FundingPips termination and asked a simple question:

"What evidence was used to terminate my account?"

Instead of receiving verifiable proof, I was met with generic responses and told the decision was final.

📅 17–28 July
For 17 days I continued asking the same questions publicly:

❓What is the evidence?

❓What account was supposedly involved?

❓How was the CID violation determined?

❓Why was my account terminated?

No detailed explanation was provided.

📅 28 July
FundingPips finally released what they called "evidence."

According to their claim:

⚠️ My device had logged into another trader's account.

⚠️ The account allegedly had a Swiss connection.

⚠️ They concluded it was the "same device."

📅 29 July
I responded with my own evidence:

✅ MT5 login records

✅ Complete MT5 journal history

✅ Counter-analysis of their claims

✅ Direct response to the alleged Swiss connection

After reviewing everything, the only Swiss connection I could identify was Duplikium, a Switzerland-based copy trading platform I used while managing my 3 × $100K evaluation accounts.

But that raises an obvious question:

❓ How does a Swiss service automatically become proof of the same physical device?

A Swiss connection ≠ Same device.

📅 Evidence Contradiction

FundingPips claimed my device accessed another trader's account approximately 5 months earlier.

However:

✅ The account they referenced was reviewed by FundingPips.

✅ The account was approved by FundingPips.

✅ I was later promoted to a Master Account.

If a serious device-sharing violation existed, why was the account approved and promoted?

📅 MT5 Log Issue

I reviewed the entire MT5 log period they referred to.

My account appears throughout the logs.

The alleged account does not appear anywhere in my MT5 journals.

This created another question:

❓ If the login occurred, why doesn't it appear in the MT5 records covering that period?

📅 Current Situation

After I published:

✅ MT5 logs

✅ Counter-evidence

✅ Timeline inconsistencies

✅ Questions regarding the "same device" conclusion

I again contacted support.

The response?

📌 Decision final.

📌 No response to the counter-evidence.

📌 No explanation of how "same device" was determined.

📌 No response to the MT5 log contradiction.

📅 Today

The dispute is no longer about whether FundingPips can investigate traders.

The dispute is about transparency.

My questions remain:

❓ How was "same device" determined?

❓ Why doesn't the alleged login appear in my MT5 logs?

❓ Why was the account approved and promoted if the violation already existed?

❓ Why are questions about the counter-evidence being ignored?

❓ Why should traders accept serious allegations without seeing verifiable evidence?

Until these questions are answered, the concerns surrounding the CID evidence remain unresolved.

#FundingPips #PropFirm #Forex #Trading #Payout #Transparency #CID #PropTrading #FundedTrader #ForexTrading

THEIR EVIDENCE - https://x.com/ErkanOriginal/status/2082016574744224243

MY COUNTER - https://x.com/theanonymous_IN/status/2082476230746771690