FundedHive founder and chief executive Thomas Heinfart called the prop trading industry's consistency rule FundedHive CEO Calls Consistency Rule “a Payout Trap” in Pointed Industry Critiquea and said only a single-digit percentage of his traders stay funded long term, in remarks published this week by ResponsibleTrading.com.
Singapore Summit: Meet the largest APAC brokers you know (and those you still don't!)
"The one rule we would remove from the industry is the consistency rule, because in most cases it is not a real risk-management tool. It is a payout trap," Heinfart said.
The rule, applied in different versions across the sector, typically caps the share of total profit that can come from a single trading day, requiring traders to keep trading until results look more evenly distributed before they can withdraw.
- Fintokei Declares Sub-Second Trader Payouts as Prop Firm Competition Intensifies
- Hola Prime Brings In Deloitte to Audit Payouts as Trust Gap Widens Across Prop Firms
- Prop Firm Crypto Payouts Doubled to $115 Million in Q1 2026, but Growth Has Stalled Since December
Heinfart said FundedHive operates "zero consistency rules on any of our challenges," alongside no IP restrictions, and that the firm permits gold trading and news trading.
He framed the issue as a question of business model rather than trader leniency. "The biggest mistake many failed firms made was that they were not built as risk-management businesses. They were built as marketing machines," he added.
Industry Pushback Against Consistency Rules Is Not New
MyFundedFX introduced a 50% consistency guideline in July 2024 and reversed it two weeks later after sustained client pushback.
A PipFarm survey of around 500 active prop traders, exclusively shared with FinanceMagnates.com the following month, found 53% of respondents listed consistency rules among the features they most wanted to avoid in a prop firm offering, second only to trailing drawdown.
Consistency-style mechanics still appear in different forms across the sector's largest firms.
FundedNext, FundingPips, and Hola Prime all build their funded-stage rules around minimum trading days and structures that reward steady performance, with FundedNext requiring a minimum of two trading days on its Stellar 1-Step program and FundingPips applying a three-day minimum on its 1-step path.
Heinfart drew a distinction between rules in general and how rules are used.
"The honest answer is that prop firm challenges are supposed to be difficult, because real capital exposure cannot be given to traders without proof of risk control," he said.
"The problem is not that rules exist. The problem is when rules are hidden, vague, changed retroactively, or used manually to avoid paying traders."
Trust Concerns Sit at the Heart of the Sector
The sector has spent the past 18 months absorbing trust-related shocks. The Funded Trader suspended payouts in March 2024 citing an internal audit and was still working through the backlog more than a year later.
FundingTicks faced trader backlash in December 2025 over what clients called retroactive changes to profit splits and trade-holding rules.
Hola Prime more recently hired Deloitte to audit five months of withdrawals, with the Big Four firm reporting that 98.35% of payouts cleared within an hour and none were rejected.
Heinfart said FundedHive has not changed rules retroactively on existing funded accounts.
"This is one of the most important trust principles in our company," he said. He also told ResponsibleTrading.com that the firm's payouts execute through smart contracts and that manual denial is not possible once eligibility is confirmed, with withdrawals typically processed in under 60 seconds, according to the company.
Those claims have not been independently audited.
Pass Rates Stay Low Across the Industry
Asked about FPFX Technology data showing only 7% of challenge buyers ever receive a payout, Heinfart said "the 7% figure does not surprise us" and called it a realistic number for traditional two-step models.
He said FundedHive's faster one-step and instant-funding products produce withdrawal ratios in the 20% to 30% range, though those figures are self-reported.
Asked what share of his traders he believed had what it takes to stay funded long-term, defined as remaining eligible across multiple payout cycles, Heinfart was more candid.
"Honestly it is a single-digit percentage. Probably under 10%," he said. The Funded Trader's own client statistics, shared earlier this year, suggested only 1% to 2% of its clients ultimately make money on the platform.
Heinfart's advice for traders trying to maximize the chances of getting paid played to the same theme.
"Stop trying to 'beat the challenge' and trade as if you are already managing real A-book exposure, because the traders who get paid are usually not the ones taking the biggest shots, they are the ones who stay eligible, controlled, and consistent," he said.
Regulation
On regulation, Heinfart said the industry could not assume it would stay outside the perimeter forever.
"We do not believe serious prop trading should be treated as gambling. But we also do not believe the whole industry can hide behind the word 'evaluation' and pretend regulation never applies," he said.
The remarks come as ESMA, the FCA, and the CFTC continue to study how prop trading firms should be classified, with the CFTC's case against My Forex Funds dismissed in May 2025.
Asked which competitor he respects most, Heinfart named FTMO, the Czech firm that acquired OANDA in 2025.
He said the company "proved something important: a prop firm can become a serious global company when it builds brand trust, technology, operational discipline, and long-term infrastructure instead of only selling hype."
