Decentralized prop firm news — every move, verified on-chain

Latest

1. ProprOctober 1, 2026

   Propr says September passed $1m in payouts, its biggest month — we counted the public series: $1,045,102.83 over 1,880 payouts, and the million was crossed on the day of the post

   THE POST. On 30 September 2026 at 13:52:33 UTC, after six days without a main post, @ProprXYZ published a monthly Payout Leaderboard: “Over $1M payouts in September. Our biggest month yet. Here's who took home the most.” The graphic states three headline figures — $1M+ paid to traders, 1,826 payouts processed, 58m median payout speed — and names the top five by total paid: SpecifiedTortoise#2458 $58,095.24, Tomdonalds $55,220.30, morningblue $47,555.84, Murtveca23 $38,619.40, ManualLeopon#1398 $34,425.43. The three biggest single payouts of the month all went to the same trader, ManualLeopon#1398: $11,746.82 and $11,700.19 on 22 September and $10,978.41 on 7 September, all three on a Gold 1-Step Classic. The footnote says these are trader shares after the 80% split, paid in USDC onchain. WHAT WE COUNTED. Propr's public timeseries endpoint returned 162 daily points on 1 October 2026 at about 04:00 UTC. September totals $1,045,102.83 over 1,880 payouts — an average of $555.91 per payout. The “biggest month yet” holds and is not close: August was $888,857.69 over 1,601 payouts, July $189,972.07 over 764. WHEN THE MILLION WAS ACTUALLY CROSSED. Through the close of 29 September the month stood at $972,230.14 over 1,768 payouts, still short. 30 September itself closed at $72,872.69 over 112 payouts — the strongest single day since 21 September ($85,196.03) and a third consecutive rise after $41,357.43 on the 28th and $43,807.35 on the 29th. So the round million was crossed during the day the post was published, which is also why the firm's 1,826 count sits below our 1,880: theirs is a partial day, ours is the full month. Lifetime at the close of 30 September: $2,307,280.58 over 4,891 payouts, with 1 October partial at $2,129.13 over 8. WHAT WE DID NOT VERIFY. The 58-minute median payout speed: the public series carries daily amounts and counts, no timestamps, so nothing in it can confirm or contradict that number. Nor did we identify the five usernames, which are the firm's own labels.

   Source: @ProprXYZ on X, 30 September 2026 13:52:33 UTC (5,513 views at our read), with its self-reply of 13:52:34 UTC pointing at the transparency dashboard (642 views); counted against propr.xyz/api/transparency/payouts/timeseries?range=all, 162 daily points from 23 April to 1 October, read by us on 1 October 2026 at about 04:00 UTC
2. ProprOctober 1, 2026

   Correction: Propr's transparency dashboard is intermittent, not dead — it rendered once in six loads, and showed $4,335,397.75 of revenue against $2,309,409.71 of payouts

   WHAT WE GOT WRONG. Since 22 September we have reported propr.xyz/transparency as blank, and on 30 September we called it a ninth day of outage. On 1 October 2026 at about 03:50 UTC the page rendered every panel in full. We then reloaded it five times between about 03:55 and 04:07 UTC and every one of those loads came back with dashes on the Overview cards and “Loading…” on all five charts, including after waits of 24 seconds. One render in six is not an outage and it is not a working page either: it is an intermittent one, and that is a materially different statement from the one we published. We are not editing the earlier entries; this one corrects them. WHAT THE ONE GOOD LOAD SAID. Total revenue $4,335,397.75, the card reading $4.34M with “+$2,653 today”; annualized run rate $19.5M, based on the last 30 days excluding today; median time to pay 18m 14s, average 2h 15m; active traders 4,157 in the trailing 30 days; paid traders 5,393; funded traders 4,165, meaning everyone who has ever passed a paid evaluation; funded trader AUM $19.1M, with the Funded chart showing 427 accounts funded against that same $19.1M; hedging PnL $328,723, realized only; pass rate 16.3% on paid challenges, 4,165 of 25,622, and 13.7% on the free trial, 977 of 7,126; and the running pass-rate panel at 16.25%, 4,163 passed, 21,456 failed, 5,019 still in flight. THREE CARDS STAYED BROKEN EVEN ON THE GOOD LOAD. Total Payouts, Largest Single Payout and Payouts Hedged showed a dash while the Payouts History chart directly beneath them printed $2,309,409.71 — the same lifetime figure the public endpoint returns to the cent. The data is there; the summary cards that should read it are not reading it. WHY IT MATTERS FOR A NUMBER WE PUBLISHED. With revenue readable again we no longer need the founder's word for it. $2,309,409.71 paid against $4,335,397.75 collected is about 53 cents returned per dollar of revenue. On 30 September we published about 56 cents, computed against the $4m the founder stated on X and which we could not then check. Both halves of today's ratio come from the firm's own published data. WHAT WE ARE STILL NOT DOING. Our dashboard snapshot stays frozen at its 20 September reading. One Overview load in six is not enough to re-read the nine tabs that snapshot covers, and dating eleven-day-old figures as today's would be worse than leaving them labelled as what they are.

   Source: propr.xyz/transparency, six consecutive loads by us on 1 October 2026 between about 03:48 and 04:07 UTC — the first rendered every panel, the five that followed showed dashes and "Loading…" after waits of 9 to 24 seconds; figures below are from the one load that rendered, at about 03:50 UTC, cross-checked against propr.xyz/api/transparency/payouts/timeseries?range=all read at about 04:00 UTC
3. SectorSeptember 30, 2026

   Hypernova's founder names the firm behind the “we win when you win” row: Vest — and asks who the counterparty is when one company is prop firm, exchange and sole market maker

   WHAT CHANGED. On 27 September Anar, founder of Hypernova, published a thread arguing that “we win when you win” is “an easy promise to make when nobody can check the books”. He named no one. On 29 September he named them. WHAT WAS SAID, AND WHEN. The thread was opened by a trader, @venom_NeverDies, asking why there is “so much hype for @VestExchange” (about 2,000 views). @perpv2 — Justin, who posts for Vest — answered that “Vest is the first fully A-book prop firm, meaning that we don't have a conflict of interest with our traders, and we don't profit off of our trader losses” (about 503 views). Anar replied three times inside 76 minutes: at 19:38:31 UTC, “Straight up lying is crazy”, quote-posting his own 27 September thread; at 20:08:20 UTC, “You're misrepresenting the truth @perpv2. Do better.”; and at 20:54:04 UTC the argument itself — “1) They are the counterparty. If Vest is the Prop firm, the exchange and the only market maker on their exchange — then who is the counterparty? 2) Justin has also said ‘we win when you win’.” — quote-posting Justin's own post of 26 August 2026, in which Vest is described as “the only A-Book prop firm”. WHAT THIS IS AND IS NOT. This is a public dispute between two competing firms, and the reach is small: the three replies drew 63, 118 and 150 views at our read, against about 2,000 for the question that started it. We have not audited Vest's order flow, its market-making arrangements or its books, and neither Anar nor Justin has published anything that would let a third party do so. What is verifiable is who said what, and that the argument has now moved from an unnamed principle to a named firm.

   Source: @hyperanar on X, 29 September 2026 20:54:04 UTC (63 views at our read), quote-posting @perpv2 of 26 August 2026; same thread 29 September 2026 19:38:31 UTC (150 views) and 20:08:20 UTC (118 views); thread opened by @venom_NeverDies (about 2,000 views) and answered by @perpv2 at about 503 views; all read by us on 30 September 2026 between 03:10 and 03:40 UTC
4. ProprSeptember 29, 2026

   Propr says it has generated $4m of revenue — $389k in eight days, and the $10m stream goal is 40% done

   THE POST. On 28 September 2026 at 04:07:21 UTC Lou Regis wrote: “We have now generated $4m of revenue. Most of this was built on the days nobody saw.” He quote-posted his own announcement of 22 March 2026, when the same daily stream was titled “Day 38, $12 revenue”. WHERE THAT SITS IN THE SERIES WE HAVE RECORDED. $2m on 16 August 2026, $2.5m on 30 August, and our own last reading of the transparency dashboard, on 20 September, gave lifetime revenue of $3,610,970.65 to the cent. The day before the milestone post, his Day 150 stream title read $3,984,358 — so the round $4m was crossed between 27 and 28 September. Against our 20 September reading that is roughly $389,000 in eight days, about $48,600 a day, and it puts the publicly stated $10m goal of the stream at 40%. WHAT WE COULD NOT DO. We could not re-read the figure at the source: propr.xyz/transparency has been rendering dashes since 22 September (separate entry below), so the $4m is the founder's statement, not a number we verified. What we could read is the payout side, which still has a working endpoint: $2,199,504.16 paid over 4,716 payouts at 03:35 UTC on 29 September. Set against $4m collected, that is about 55 cents returned per dollar of revenue — computed from one figure we verified and one we did not.

   Source: @louisregis on X, 28 September 2026 04:07:21 UTC (about 4,000 views at our read), quote-posting his own stream announcement of 22 March 2026; his Day 150 stream title of 27 September 2026 08:47:46 UTC read for the intermediate figure; propr.xyz/api/transparency/payouts/timeseries?range=all read by us on 29 September 2026 at 03:35 UTC
5. ProprSeptember 29, 2026

   Propr says it “improved the risk operations, making payouts faster again” — and the public series backs it: $41,357 on 28 September after a four-day slide to $13,427

   THE CLAIM. On 28 September 2026 at 22:29:44 UTC, in a public reply, @ProprXYZ wrote: “Improved the risk operations. Making payouts faster again.” 24 views at our read — the sort of line nobody reports, and the sort we can check. WHAT WE COUNTED. Propr's public timeseries endpoint returned 160 daily points on 29 September 2026 at 03:35 UTC. The closed days run: 24 September $63,660.36 over 95 payouts, 25 September $29,340.38 over 70, 26 September $19,964.50 over 48, 27 September $13,427.15 over 56 — four consecutive falling days, the last of them the weakest since early September — then 28 September $41,357.43 over 84, roughly three times the day before and the first real rebound of the slide. Lifetime at our read: $2,199,504.16 over 4,716 payouts, with 29 September partial at $8,903.63 over 10. WHAT ELSE THE SERIES SHOWS. No retroactive rewriting overnight: the 25 and 26 September closes come back identical to the cent against our reading of the day before ($29,340.383027 and $19,964.496419). We check this every run because a silently revised history would matter more than any single day's number. WHAT WE ARE NOT SAYING. One day is not a trend, the word “faster” refers to time-to-pay and what we measured is volume and count, and we cannot see why payouts fell for four days — the dashboard that would explain it has been blank since 22 September. The firm's own statement is the only account of the cause, and it is an account, not evidence.

   Source: @ProprXYZ on X, 28 September 2026 22:29:44 UTC (24 views at our read), replying in a public thread; checked against propr.xyz/api/transparency/payouts/timeseries?range=all, 160 daily points, read by us on 29 September 2026 at 03:35 UTC
6. ProprSeptember 29, 2026

   Propr answers “verify everything” with a link to a dashboard that has printed dashes for eight days — while the endpoint behind it still works

   WHAT WAS SAID. On 28 September 2026 at 22:27:47 UTC, answering a public thread about trust, @ProprXYZ wrote: “All our data is publicly displayed here: propr.xyz/transparency. All wallets are public, you can verify everything.” 304 views. The day before, at 04:35:38 UTC on 27 September, the CEO answered another thread with “Our financials are public:” and the same link. 48 views. WHAT THE PAGE SHOWED WHEN WE OPENED IT. We loaded propr.xyz/transparency on 29 September 2026 at 03:40 UTC and waited. Eleven Overview cards — total revenue, annualised run rate, total payouts, largest single payout, median time to pay, active traders, paid traders, funded traders, funded trader AuM, payouts hedged, pass rate — all render an em dash. Hedging PnL reads $0.00. The five charts below say “Loading…” and never resolve. This is the eighth consecutive day we have recorded the same failure, symptom for symptom, since 22 September. AND YET THE DATA IS PUBLIC. In the same minute, the endpoint the page is built on answered normally: propr.xyz/api/transparency/payouts/timeseries?range=all returned 160 daily points, 23 April to 29 September, $2,199,504.16 over 4,716 payouts. So the honest version of the firm's sentence is that its payout data really is public and really is verifiable — through a URL no trader will ever find — while the page it tells people to open has shown them nothing for over a week. WHAT WE ARE NOT SAYING. We are not saying anything is hidden: the outage looks like a broken front end, not a withdrawal of data, and the one series we can read shows no retroactive edits. We are saying that answering a trust question with a link is only worth something if the link works, and that nobody at the firm appears to have opened it in eight days.

   Source: @ProprXYZ on X, 28 September 2026 22:27:47 UTC (304 views at our read), and @louisregis on X, 27 September 2026 04:35:38 UTC (48 views), both linking propr.xyz/transparency; that page opened by us on 29 September 2026 at 03:40 UTC and its payouts endpoint queried the same minute
7. ProprSeptember 29, 2026

   Propr's CEO publishes a four-item transparency standard for perp prop firms — and promises $1m in reserve “next week”

   THE STANDARD HE SETS. On 27 September 2026 at 04:43:36 UTC Lou Regis posted that “it's disappointing how few of them are transparent, and how little transparency traders demand”, and listed what he would expect a perp prop firm to show at the bare minimum: revenue stats, payout stats, reserves, and how it hedges — “ideally onchain”. He added that the sector is “plagued by a lack of trust, and for good reason”, blaming reckless risk management and greed. 5,261 views and 26 replies at our read. THE LAST LINE IS THE ONE THAT CAN BE CHECKED. The post ends: “$1m in reserve coming next week for @ProprXYZ”. That is a dated commitment, and it is not delivered at our read on 29 September 2026: Propr's published address directory lists payout sender wallets and a verified Payout Distributor contract that holds close to no balance, which is why every payout is verifiable one transaction at a time while no reserve balance is readable anywhere — the exact gap his own third item names. Hypernova, by contrast, has a pre-funded vault whose balance anyone can read, and that asymmetry is recorded on this site since August. WHAT WE ARE NOT SAYING. We are not saying the reserve will not appear; “next week” from 27 September runs to roughly 4 October, so this entry is a marker, not a verdict. We are also not scoring the standard itself: by his own four items, Propr today publishes revenue, payouts and a hedging tab, and no reserve.

   Source: @louisregis on X, 27 September 2026 04:43:36 UTC (5,261 views, 26 replies at our read); his reply of 27 September 2026 04:35:38 UTC in a separate thread read alongside it
8. SectorSeptember 29, 2026

   “We win when you win is an easy promise when nobody can check the books”: Hypernova's founder takes apart the A-book claim

   THE POST. On 27 September 2026 at 14:44:58 UTC Anar, Hypernova's founder, opened with “‘We win when you win’ is an easy promise to make when nobody can check the books”, said he generally avoids industry drama but that “seriously misleading claims deserve scrutiny”, and then laid out the arithmetic. For challenge-based firms, fees are revenue and payouts are an expense: a trader making $10,000 does not mean the firm earned $10,000 in the market, and an 80/20 split means the firm owes $8,000 — not that it earned $2,000. Partial hedging of payout exposure, he wrote, is different from fully A-booking every funded trader; and routing trades to an exchange, “including your own”, does not answer who ultimately carries the risk. If the firm or an affiliate keeps the opposing risk, trader profits still cost that business money. He closed on his own house: at Hypernova traders can check fees, payouts and reserves on-chain, alongside records of bans, restrictions and live pass rates by account type — “the standard should be simple: traders can verify what firms claim. Ours included.” 6,314 views, 22 replies, 11 reposts at our read. WHY IT MATTERS HERE. This is the second founder in ten hours to argue the same thing from the other side: Propr's CEO published his own four-item transparency list at 04:43 UTC the same day. No firm is named in either post, though Anar had tagged a rival in a related thread on 26 September. WHAT WE ARE NOT SAYING. We have not audited how any firm routes its flow, and we take no side on whose disclosure is better. We report the argument, we do not adopt it.

   Source: @hyperanar on X, 27 September 2026 14:44:58 UTC (6,314 views, 22 replies, 11 reposts at our read); his replies of 27 September 2026 13:09:31 and 13:44:01 UTC read in the same pass
9. SectorSeptember 29, 2026

   Hypernova's founder links a formal smart-contract audit — dated March 2026, two months before launch — and claims zero open payout disputes

   WHAT WAS PUBLISHED. On 27 September 2026 at 13:09:31 UTC, answering a sceptic in a public thread, Anar wrote that Hypernova's smart contracts “have been publicly auditable since we launched in May” and linked a formal review carried out with @pashov: the file Hypernova-security-review_2026-03-09.pdf in the pashov/audits repository on GitHub. 688 views at our read. Thirty-five minutes later, at 13:44:01 UTC, answering a claim about disputes: “We have 0 payout disputes going on. All of our payouts are recorded onchain and have all been paid in <10s via our smart contract.” WHAT THE DATE TELLS YOU, AND WHAT IT DOES NOT. The audit file is dated 9 March 2026. Hypernova launched in May 2026, so the review covers the contracts as they stood two months before launch, not as they stand today — that is normal practice and not a criticism, but it is the first thing to check on any audit link, and it means later contract changes are outside its scope. This is, as far as this watch has recorded, the first formal security audit any of the firms we follow has put in front of the public on X. WHAT WE DID NOT DO. We did not open the PDF: our reader could not fetch the GitHub file at the time of this entry, so we report the link exactly as the founder gave it and make no statement about the audit's findings, its scope, or which contracts it covers. We also have not verified the “0 payout disputes” claim, which is by nature unfalsifiable from outside; the sub-10-second figure is consistent with the 5.8s average payout time the firm's own stats page showed at our read of 28 September, itself the firm's display.

   Source: @hyperanar on X, 27 September 2026 13:09:31 UTC (688 views at our read), linking pashov/audits on GitHub; his reply of 27 September 2026 13:44:01 UTC read in the same pass
10. SectorSeptember 29, 2026

    Hypernova tells traders to keep their Nova Score high and “enjoy the discounts” — its own documentation says perks are not available yet

    THE TWO SENTENCES. On 28 September 2026 at 14:54:09 UTC @HypernovaX replied to a trader: “Keep that score high and enjoy the discounts.” 53 views. The day before, at 16:34:10 UTC, the same account had finally said where the feature lives: “Click on Nova Score (in the Home Page) and you will see button to conect wallet” — the first published location of Wallet Connect, four days after it shipped. 54 views. WHAT THE DOCUMENTATION SAYS, READ THE SAME DAY. Nova Score does have a documentation page, hypernova.xyz/docs/nova-score.md, and it is a serious one: the score is weighted Performance 35%, Risk control 30%, Consistency 20%, Discipline 10%, Activity 5%, with rank updated nightly. Its Perks section reads: Nova Score “is intended to unlock perks for consistent traders, such as increased funding, wider risk limits, and monthly cash grants”, followed by a boxed note: “Coming soon. Nova Score is still in beta. Perks, tiers, and unlock requirements are being defined and are not available yet.” The word discount appears nowhere on that page. So the three perks the firm documents are funding, risk limits and cash grants — not price — and all three are marked unavailable, while the reply on X speaks of discounts in the present tense. WHAT IS STILL MISSING. “Wallet Connect” remains absent from every documentation page and from the site's own machine index /docs/llms.txt, on our fourth consecutive check. No discount grid, no score-to-price mapping, no figure of any kind. WHAT WE ARE NOT SAYING. We have not connected a wallet, not obtained a score and not been quoted a price, so we cannot say whether a discount exists in the product. We can say the firm's support channel and the firm's documentation do not currently say the same thing.

    Source: @HypernovaX on X, 28 September 2026 14:54:09 UTC (53 views at our read), and its reply of 27 September 2026 16:34:10 UTC (54 views) locating the feature; hypernova.xyz/docs/nova-score.md and the site's machine index /docs/llms.txt read by us on 29 September 2026
11. SectorSeptember 29, 2026

    Propr's CEO says a rival firm tried to tank its Trustpilot score — no firm named, no evidence published

    THE POST. On 27 September 2026 at 07:09:50 UTC Lou Regis posted eleven words: “Shoutout to the firm trying to tank our Trustpilot score. Very poorly executed.” About 14,000 views and 41 replies at our read — by a wide margin the most-seen post on any of the four accounts we watch in this window, more than his transparency thread and more than the $4m milestone. WHAT IT CONTAINS. No firm is named. No screenshot, no review IDs, no dates, no count of the reviews he means, and no Trustpilot notice. Nothing in the post can be checked by a reader, which is the reason we log it as an accusation rather than as an event. WHY WE LOG IT AT ALL. Review scores are a buying input: readers use them, and this site quotes them. A public claim by a firm's CEO that a competitor is manipulating them is worth knowing about precisely so that a reader treats the next Trustpilot number they see — his or anyone's — with the appropriate caution, in both directions. Coordinated review brigading is real and common in this industry; so is blaming a rival for organic negative reviews, and this post does not let anyone tell which happened. WHAT WE ARE NOT SAYING. We did not audit Propr's Trustpilot profile, we have no evidence that any firm brigaded it, and we name no one. We are not endorsing the claim, and we are not dismissing it. If evidence is published, or if Trustpilot acts, we will record that as a new entry rather than edit this one.

    Source: @louisregis on X, 27 September 2026 07:09:50 UTC — about 14,000 views, 41 replies, the widest-reaching post on any of the four accounts we watch during the 27–29 September window
12. SectorSeptember 28, 2026

    Hypernova's tradable universe grows from 99 to 106 markets, again with no announcement

    WHAT WE READ. On 28 September 2026 the hypernova.xyz homepage invited visitors to "Browse all 106 markets", up from the 99 we have recorded at every read since 31 August 2026, including the weekly grid of 21 September and the full funnel read of 14 September. That is a gain of 7 tradable instruments. As with the 141-to-99 cut we recorded on 31 August, the firm publishes no market changelog and we found no announcement on its X account: the increase is visible only by comparing dated reads, and we cannot say which day it happened or which instruments were added. Other figures read the same visit, for context: payout reserve displayed $592.2K (the automated on-chain read taken the same morning, 03:00 UTC, block 509578266, gave $581,759.70 — a roughly $10.5K display lag consistent with the pattern recorded on this site since August), lifetime payouts $1.19M, average payout time 5.8s, 2,049 active traders over 30 days, funded trader AuM $4.53M, traded volume $6.96B, 25K assessment fees unchanged at $120 tight / $275 low / $365 medium, pass rates 19.5% tight / 20.2% low / 31.7% medium, and the "closed beta · invite only" badge still on the hero, over six weeks after the firm said that beta had ended. WHAT WE ARE NOT SAYING. Nothing above was verified on-chain beyond the reserve figure; the market count and every other counter are the firm's own display.

    Source: hypernova.xyz homepage, read 28 September 2026
13. ProprSeptember 27, 2026

    Propr's CEO answers a trader on slippage and points at his fee page — the page lists 137 assets, all VWAP, and no “top of book” tier

    WHAT HAPPENED. On 26 September 2026 at 03:50:15 UTC a funded trader (@crypto01101981) asked Lou Regis publicly why an open-and-close round trip costs him about 0.4% on a Turbo account that leaves a 2.2% cushion, adding that he had left a rival firm for Propr. The CEO answered three times the same day. At 03:55:54 UTC: “Our fee schedule per asset is shown here: propr.xyz/universe. You can also check the slippage methodology, either vwap against hyperliquid orderbook or top of book for the highly traded tradfi assets.” At 04:16:09 UTC he posted a Loom, “Hyperliquid Fees, Slippage, and Hedging Explained”. At 16:46:24 UTC, after a second trader pushed back: “Slippage on BTC & ETH should be close to non existent. You can view the exact slippage on your trade history. Again, we replicate the order book of hyperliquid. Our books are as liquid as hyperliquid.” WHAT THE PAGE HE POINTS AT ACTUALLY SAYS, READ BY US ON 27 SEPTEMBER 2026. The fee schedule is real and public, which is already more than most of this sector publishes: maker/taker per asset, 0.015%/0.045% on crypto, 0.030%/0.090% on equities, 0.003%/0.009% on FX. A taker round trip is therefore 0.09% on crypto and 0.18% on equities before slippage — so the trader's 0.4% is not the fee schedule, and the remainder would have to be slippage, which we have not measured. THREE THINGS DO NOT LINE UP. First, the page's own heading counts 137 assets (94 crypto, 35 equities, 5 commodities, 2 indices, 1 FX), while its title tag and the link preview under the CEO's own tweet both read “160+ tradeable markets”. Second, we read the fill-algo column on all 137 rows: every single one says VWAP, equities included — the “top of book for the highly traded tradfi assets” he describes is nowhere on the page he cites. Third, “our books are as liquid as hyperliquid” is a claim about replication; the page evidences nothing of the kind. WHAT WE ARE NOT SAYING. We have not placed an order, not measured slippage, and not watched the Loom end to end. Nothing here says Propr's execution is bad. It says the public page answers less than the answer implies — and that Propr is still the only firm in this watch that publishes a per-asset fee grid at all.

    Source: @louisregis on X, three replies of 26 September 2026 (03:55:54, 04:16:09 and 16:46:24 UTC) in a thread opened at 03:50:15 UTC by a funded trader; propr.xyz/universe read by us on 27 September 2026, with the fill-algo and fee columns counted programmatically across all 137 rows
14. SectorSeptember 27, 2026

    Wallet Connect: Hypernova finally puts a number on it — up to three Hyperliquid wallets — and still not one line of documentation

    THE FIRST HARD SPEC. Wallet Connect shipped on 25 September 2026 (our entry of 26 September). Since then the only new verifiable fact about it is a single line, posted by the firm itself. On 26 September 2026 at 18:52:54 UTC, asked “do they allow you connect more than 1 wallet?”, @HypernovaX replied: “Yes - up to 3 from Hyperliquid”. 26 views at our read. WHY A THREE-WALLET CAP IS NOT A DETAIL. The product prices your assessment off your past trading. A cap decides whether a trader may aggregate the history of several accounts into one score — and, pointing the other way, how far someone may shop for their three best-looking wallets before connecting. Hypernova has published no rule on either side of that question: nothing on aggregation, nothing on selection, nothing on what happens to a wallet you connect and then regret. WHAT IS STILL MISSING, FORTY-EIGHT HOURS IN. No documentation: on 27 September the term “Wallet Connect” still appears nowhere under hypernova.xyz/docs, nor in the site's own machine index /docs/llms.txt — the second consecutive day we have checked that index, which exists precisely so that a machine can enumerate every documented page. No published discount: nothing turns a score into a price, and the configurator still prints $275 for a $25K Low Risk. Still only Hyperliquid, one of the three venues the Fast Track has advertised since 21 September. Still a Discord invite as the only door, on a platform badged “closed beta · invite only”. WE HAVE NOT TESTED IT. The three-wallet figure is the firm's own statement in a reply to a stranger, not something we could reproduce or find written down anywhere it would survive being edited.

    Source: @HypernovaX on X, 26 September 2026 18:52:54 UTC (26 views at our read), answering @0xgodzubby's question of 18:45:36 UTC under @ohasteve's post of 18:35:32 UTC; hypernova.xyz/docs and the site's own machine index /docs/llms.txt re-read by us on 27 September 2026
15. SectorSeptember 27, 2026

    Hypernova's founder publicly doubts a rival's A-book claim: passing an assessment in under a day “tells you almost nothing” about a trader's edge

    WHAT WAS SAID, AND BY WHOM. On 26 September 2026 at 04:58:29 UTC, Anar, founder of Hypernova, replied inside a public thread about a rival venue: “They've been implying that they A-book every trader who gets funded and profit when their traders profit. You can pass an assessment in <1 day. That tells you almost nothing about whether a trader actually has positive expectancy. If they were taking every funded trader's trades 1:1, they'd lose money very quickly. There simply isn't enough information at the point of funding to know which traders are profitable.” 105 views at our read. WHY THIS IS WORTH A LINE ON A COMPARISON SITE. A-book — the firm mirrors funded traders' orders into the real market and earns when they earn — versus B-book — the firm takes the other side — is the single question that decides whether a prop firm's interests point the same way as yours. Founders almost never argue it in public with a competitor tagged. And the argument he makes is checkable reasoning rather than gossip: a one-day assessment is thin evidence of edge, so a firm mirroring every funded account from day one is carrying that selection risk on its own balance sheet. WHAT WE HAVE NOT DONE, AND IT MATTERS. We have not verified how the firm he is talking about actually routes its flow. We did not ask it for a response, and it had not replied at our read. This is also not a description of Hypernova's own model — the founder did not state one here, and a firm's criticism of a rival is not a disclosure about itself. Treat it as what it is: an attributed opinion from a competitor, dated, sourced, and left standing on its own logic.

    Source: @hyperanar on X, 26 September 2026 04:58:29 UTC (105 views at our read), replying to @Wizippo's question of 25 September 2026 23:27:40 UTC in a public thread that also tags @VestExchange
16. SectorSeptember 26, 2026

    Hypernova's payout reserve has fallen 23% in six days with no top-up — one day after its founder said the firm has plenty of capital

    WHAT WE READ, OURSELVES, ON THE CHAIN. Hypernova publishes two addresses that together make up what it calls its payout reserve: an operational vault (0x9209…4c67) and a cold reserve wallet (0x43c5…da07), both holding USDC on Arbitrum. We read their balances every day. The series, in dollars: 19 September $789,204.89 · 21 September $760,508.43 · 22 September $703,639.00 · 23 September $660,767.79 · 24 September $644,951.95 · 25 September 04:34 UTC $613,521.44 · 25 September 13:41:07 UTC, block 508779174, $603,641.43 (vault $22,386.32 + cold wallet $581,255.11). That is six consecutive declines and $185,563.46 gone, 23.5% of the reserve, in six days and a half. Not one of those days shows an inflow. THE COLD WALLET IS BEING EMPTIED IN ROUND TRANCHES. The reserve wallet alone went from $758,255.04 to $581,255.11 — exactly $177,000.00 out, in tranches of $30,000, $60,000, $35,000, $20,000 and $32,000. The vault it feeds stays in a $22K–$35K band throughout, which is what a buffer being refilled and drained looks like. The money leaving the cold wallet is not coming back. THE FIRM'S OWN NUMBER SAYS THE SAME THING. We recorded Hypernova's displayed reserve at $774,482 on 21 September. On 26 September, three consecutive reads of hypernova.xyz/stats returned the same figure: $600.0K. Over that same window its own lifetime-payouts counter went from $1,025,771 to $1,190,239 — up $164,468, while the displayed reserve fell $174,482. The two numbers track each other almost exactly, and the plain reading is the honest one: the reserve is going down because they are paying people, and nobody has put money back in. THE TIMING, WHICH IS THE ONLY REASON THIS IS AN ENTRY. On 24 September at 21:02:29 UTC, answering a funded trader who asked whether the firm could afford its own offer, Hypernova's founder said: “We're sustainable at current margins… we have plenty of capital to keep building the team and product.” We published that reply on 25 September and said in writing what would make it worth revisiting: the reserve. It has fallen every single day since. WHAT THIS IS NOT. A falling reserve is what paying traders looks like. It is not insolvency, it is not a missed payout — every payout in the public list settled, the newest ones in five to eight seconds — and it is not a statement about Hypernova's bank account, because the reserve is a published payout buffer, not the company's treasury. Hypernova has topped this reserve up three times that we have recorded, the last around 11 September, which took our chain read to $977,923.42 on 14 September. A fourth top-up would end this entry. THE ARITHMETIC, AND ONLY THE ARITHMETIC. The average net drain over the last six days is about $28,800 a day. At that pace, $603,641 is about twenty-one days of reserve. We are not forecasting: the pace is not a promise, and a top-up can land tomorrow. We are saying that this is the number to watch, that it is readable by anyone with an RPC endpoint, and that we will read it again tomorrow. ONE MORE FIGURE, IN THE SAME DIRECTION. The firm's own funded-trader AUM went from $4.72M (21 September) to $4.43M (26 September), and the 30-day growth it advertises alongside it fell from +$2.48M to +$1.73M. Funded traders went the other way, 87 to 94.

    Source: Our own Arbitrum JSON-RPC reads of USDC.balanceOf on the two published Hypernova addresses (operational vault 0x9209…4c67 + cold reserve wallet 0x43c5…da07), dated series 19→25 September 2026, latest block 508779174 at 2026-09-25T13:41:07Z; the firm's own displayed reserve and payout counters read by us on hypernova.xyz/stats on 26 September 2026 (three identical reads); founder's claim at x.com/hyperanar/status/2103228600262762525, 24 September 2026 21:02:29 UTC
17. SectorSeptember 26, 2026

    Hypernova ships Wallet Connect: your Hyperliquid history now sets your assessment price — and the docs have not caught up

    WHAT WAS ANNOUNCED. On 25 September 2026 at 16:28:04 UTC, @HypernovaX posted: “Introducing Wallet Connect. Connect your trading history to Hypernova. Unlock better assessment pricing. Starting with Hyperliquid.” 26,400 views at our read. A self-reply posted in the same second gives the only way in: a Discord invite, “Join private beta”. THE FOUNDER BROKE 28 DAYS OF SILENCE FOR IT. At 17:25:25 UTC, @hyperanar quoted that post — his first main post on his own timeline since 28 August 2026, which we had been counting run after run. His text: “If you've put years into building your trading track record, that history should help you get funded. Hypernova is now the first prop firm to let you connect your existing trading history, starting with Hyperliquid. More insight for us, better assessment pricing for you. The part I'm most excited about comes next: using that history to identify traders we can fund directly, without an assessment. Still work to do, but this gets us closer.” The “first prop firm” is his claim. We have not verified it and do not repeat it as fact. HOW IT WORKS, PER THE FOUNDER'S OWN REPLIES. At 17:32:37 UTC: “Authenticity check is via wallet signatures. We already have scoring mechanism from Nova Score — we're applying that to external trading history.” At 17:42:41 UTC: “Yes! You can connect trading history before making a purchase.” So: you sign with your wallet to prove the account is yours, and the Nova Score engine announced on 22 September is turned on data Hypernova did not generate. That is the interesting part, and it is a real product decision. WHAT IS NEW, AND WHAT WAS ALREADY THERE. This is not a route that appeared yesterday. On 21 September we recorded, from Hypernova's own homepage, a “Fast Track”: connect an exchange history from a supported venue, get a score, and qualifying traders skip the evaluation. The venues listed that day were Hyperliquid, Binance and Bybit, and no qualification criteria were published. What shipped on 25 September is the first of those three venues. The homepage has been rewritten around it: step 01 of “how it works” now reads “Complete a trading assessment or connect your trading history across other venues”, and the configurator carries an Assessment / Fast Track toggle with the line “then connect your trading history to skip the line”. WHAT WE COULD NOT FIND, AND LOOKED FOR. There is no Wallet Connect page in the documentation. We fetched hypernova.xyz/docs and the site's own machine index at /docs/llms.txt on 26 September: the term does not appear in either. This is the same shape as Nova Score three days earlier, announced on X as a scaling system while its own doc page called it informational. We are not saying the feature does not work — we are saying that on the day it launched, the only description of it is a tweet. NOR IS THE DISCOUNT QUANTIFIED ANYWHERE. “Better assessment pricing” has no published grid, no percentage, no worked example. The configurator still prints $275 for a $25K Low Risk account, the same figure as on 21 September, and the rulebook fee schedule still prints $280 for it — the five-dollar gap we first recorded on 5 September is still open. Until someone connects a wallet and sees a number, the size of the benefit is unknown. AND THE BIG PROMISE IS EXPLICITLY NOT SHIPPED. Funding a trader directly on the strength of an external track record, with no assessment at all, is the part the founder says he is most excited about — and he writes “still work to do”. Roadmap, by his own words, not a feature. One more thing for anyone reading this as an invitation: the homepage still badges the platform “closed beta · invite only”, and the beta door is a Discord link.

    Source: @HypernovaX on X, 25 September 2026 16:28:04 UTC (26,400 views at our read), with its own self-reply of the same second linking a Discord invite; founder's quote-post x.com/hyperanar/status/2103536363131773246, 25 September 2026 17:25:25 UTC (6,632 views), and his replies of 17:32:37 and 17:42:41 UTC; hypernova.xyz homepage, hypernova.xyz/docs and its own index /docs/llms.txt, all read by us on 26 September 2026
18. ProprSeptember 26, 2026

    Propr's CEO asks prop firms to publish their financials and says his are checkable in real time — his own dashboard has shown nothing for five days

    THE POST. On 25 September 2026 at 06:26:29 UTC, @louisregis wrote: “Beyond anything else, trust in a prop firm starts with its revenue model: is the business actually making money, how is it making money, and is that model sustainable over time? I hope more perp prop firms start sharing these numbers and being transparent about their financials. With Propr, anyone can check our financials in real time.” 4,718 views at our read. In substance we agree with every word of the first sentence — it is the reason this site exists. The last sentence is the one we checked. WHAT THE PAGE ACTUALLY SHOWS. We opened propr.xyz/transparency on 26 September. Eleven Overview cards read “–”: Total Revenue, Annualized Run Rate, Total Payouts, Largest Single Payout, Median Time to Pay, Active Traders, Paid Traders, Funded Traders, Funded Trader AUM, Payouts Hedged, Pass Rate. Hedging PnL reads $0.00. All five charts — Traders over Time, Revenue, Funded Traders & Capital, Pass Rate over Time, Payouts History — read “Loading…” and stay there. This is the fifth consecutive day we have recorded that state; the first was 22 September. There is no revenue figure of any kind on that page today, and there was none on the day the post was published. WHAT STILL WORKS, AND WHY IT DOES NOT SAVE THE CLAIM. One thing on that dashboard answers normally: the raw JSON endpoint behind the payouts chart, /api/transparency/payouts/timeseries?range=all. We read it three times in a row today and got the same answer each time: 157 daily points from 23 April to 26 September, $2,128,316.16 paid across 4,534 payouts, with 25 September closing at $29,340.38 over 70 payouts. That is real, it is public, and it is how we have been dating Propr's milestones for weeks. But it is a JSON URL nobody links to, it covers payouts only, and it contains no revenue. “Anyone can check our financials in real time” is, this week, true only for someone who already knows to call an undocumented endpoint — and even then, not for revenue. WHERE THE REVENUE NUMBER ACTUALLY LIVES. On X, in the founder's own stream title. Ninety minutes after the transparency post, at 07:56:14 UTC, he published “Streaming everyday until I Make $10,000,000 with ProprXYZ | Day 149, $3'887'126 revenue”. The previous episode, Day 148, was 23 September at $3,773,365: $113,761 more in two days. Note what that also means — the series billed as daily skipped 24 September, the third skip we have recorded this week. A revenue figure that exists only as text in a video title, on a channel that misses days, is not a financial statement. IT IS ALSO NOT NOTHING. We would rather have a firm whose CEO posts an unverifiable number every day than one whose founder answers a solvency question with four sentences and no figures, which is exactly what happened at the other firm we follow on 24 September. The asymmetry is worth keeping in mind while reading this entry: Propr is being criticised here for the gap between a claim and a page, which is a criticism only available because Propr publishes a page at all. WHAT WE WOULD LIKE, PLAINLY. Fix the dashboard, and the sentence becomes true. Until then, the honest version of it is: “anyone can check our payouts in real time, at this URL”. ONE CHECK CLOSED. Yesterday we published that the payout series had been silently restated — same money, 1,378 fewer payouts. Today's three reads confirm the restatement is stable and not a glitch: the daily amounts and the revised counts for 19–23 September come back identical. A small residual drift remains between replicas — the 23 September close reads $2,022,935.58 today against $2,022,850.71 yesterday, and the cumulative count at 23 August reads 2,529 against 2,527. Reported, unresolved, and still unannounced by the firm.

    Source: @louisregis on X, 25 September 2026 06:26:29 UTC (4,718 views at our read); revenue post x.com/louisregis/status/2103393122319568964 of the same day 07:56:14 UTC; propr.xyz/transparency and its endpoint /api/transparency/payouts/timeseries?range=all, both read by us on 26 September 2026 (three consecutive endpoint reads)
19. SectorSeptember 25, 2026

    Hypernova's founder breaks four weeks of silence to answer, in public, whether the firm is losing money — and gives no figure

    THE QUESTION. On 24 September 2026 at 19:49:58 UTC, @cerplix — a funded trader whose bio claims over $1M in AUM and over $100,000 in payouts across six firms — asked @hyperanar and @HypernovaX in the open: “been loving trading on your firm, but one concern: how do you plan for this to be sustainable? Even if your customer acquisition is on the low end of $45 for a prop firm + nearly 5m aum with funded traders you're already almost running at a loss? Not to count the tech cost + salary of employees, I'm genuinely curious about the longterm plan here?” The post has 139 views. The “nearly 5m aum” is not invented: Hypernova publishes it itself. We read hypernova.xyz/stats on 21 September 2026 and recorded funded AUM of $4.72M, up $2.48M in thirty days. THE ANSWER, IN FULL. At 21:02:29 UTC, one hour and thirteen minutes later, the founder replied: “Gm, appreciate the kind words! Offering traders the best trading conditions means accepting lower margins. That's a deliberate choice we've made. Our net margins remain positive, including through periods of high market volatility, when payouts typically concentrate. We're sustainable at current margins. Our focus is maintaining them as we scale, and we have plenty of capital to keep building the team and product.” WHY THIS IS AN EVENT AND NOT A TWEET. @hyperanar's last main post on his own timeline is dated 28 August 2026 at 14:44:56 UTC — twenty-eight days without one at the time of writing. Through the launch of Nova Score on 22 September, through the firm's own $1,000,000 payout milestone on 21 September, he posted nothing. The subject that brought him back is the firm's balance sheet. WHAT HE SAID, AND WHAT HE DID NOT. He asserts four things: margins are deliberately thin; net margins are positive; they hold up during volatility spikes, which is when payouts cluster; and there is capital to keep hiring and building. Every one of them is a statement, not a disclosure. No revenue figure. No margin percentage. No runway. No capital raised. Nothing in it can be checked from outside, and Hypernova's own stats page publishes no revenue line. The contrast with the other firm we follow is stark, and worth stating plainly: Propr's founder posts a running revenue counter to X almost daily (“Day 148, $3,773,365 revenue”, 23 September) — also unverifiable, but at least a number. THE SECOND REPLY, WHICH WE CANNOT FULLY SOURCE. Six minutes on, at 21:08:37 UTC, the same founder added: “Hmm... this is the most interesting point in the thread. ‘We profit when traders profit’ - there is no way that is true... It implies they are A-Booking all of their funded traders, which is not feasible at all.” A-booking means routing a trader's order to the real market rather than taking the other side of it. The claim he is attacking is a standard line in this industry, but we cannot tell you who wrote it: four posts in that thread return “post unavailable” from our account, and the quoted line is in one of them. We are reporting the reply, not the target. WHAT TO DO WITH THIS. Take it as what it is — the first time Hypernova's founder has publicly addressed the economics of his own firm, on a question asked by a paying customer rather than by a critic. It is a reason to keep watching the reserve, not a reason to conclude anything. Our own chain reads of the Hypernova payout reserve, published elsewhere on this site, remain the figure we stand behind; this reply changes none of them.

    Source: @hyperanar on X, 24 September 2026 21:02:29 UTC (37 views at our read), replying to @cerplix of the same day 19:49:58 UTC (x.com/cerplix/status/2103210351093502351, 139 views); second reply 21:08:37 UTC (x.com/hyperanar/status/2103230144240644153); AUM figure cross-checked against hypernova.xyz/stats as read by us on 21 September 2026
20. ProprSeptember 25, 2026

    Propr's public payout history was restated overnight: the money is intact, the number of payouts fell from 5,834 to about 4,455, and the firm has said nothing

    WHAT WE SAW. Yesterday, to audit Propr's $2,000,000 announcement, we read its public endpoint /api/transparency/payouts/timeseries?range=all and wrote the result down: 155 daily points, lifetime $2,024,846.77 across 5,834 payouts, plus the day-by-day detail. We read the same endpoint again this morning, 25 September 2026, around 05:05 UTC. The lifetime amount had risen as expected, to $2,090,324.95. The lifetime payout count had FALLEN, to 4,456 — even though a full trading day of 95 fresh payouts had been added in between. THE MONEY IS FINE. THE COUNTING IS NOT. Day by day, the dollar amounts match our previous read to the cent: 19 September $14,324.68, 20 September $29,562.28, 21 September $85,196.03, 22 September $55,391.65, 23 September $41,329.90 — identical. The counts attached to those exact same dollars did not: 68 became 58, 93 became 72, 130 became 113, 104 became 65, 113 became 91. The revision is not confined to last week. The cumulative count at 23 August was 3,411 in our read of yesterday; today the same date reads 2,527. Cumulative amounts moved too, but barely: the close of 23 September went from $2,024,623.04 to $2,022,850.71, a difference of $1,772.33, or 0.09%. TWO SERVERS, TWO HISTORIES. While checking, the endpoint returned two different series within the same few minutes, differing by $868.77 and 2 payouts across the whole history — one replica reporting 4,456 lifetime payouts, another 4,454, with the gap already present in the cumulative figure at 19 September. Five consecutive reads then settled on the lower one before the higher one returned. We report both and pick neither. YESTERDAY'S MILESTONE STILL STANDS, AND WE CHECKED. This is the first thing we verified, because it would be the worst outcome. On both versions of the restated series, the $1,000,000 line is still crossed on 23 August 2026 and the $2,000,000 line is still crossed on 23 September 2026, the day Propr announced it. Our entry of 24 September is unaffected in its conclusion. Two derived figures in it have moved with the restatement and we state the new values here rather than editing that entry: the amount needed within 23 September to cross the line is $19,347.96 rather than $16,706.86, and the busiest single day by number of payouts is now 21 August with 187. WHAT WE ARE NOT SAYING. We are not saying anything was hidden and we are not alleging a shortfall. A downward revision of a payout COUNT with the dollars untouched is what deduplication looks like: one payout paid out in several on-chain transfers, previously counted several times, now counted once. Excluding internal or test payouts would do the same. Both would be a correction in the right direction. THE POINT IS THAT IT WAS SILENT. Propr sells verifiability — the page this data feeds opens with an invitation to “see exactly how Propr operates in real time”. A metric on that page moved by roughly a quarter and there was no post, no note, no changelog. Anyone who quoted “5,834 payouts” yesterday — including us — is now quoting a number the firm no longer publishes. We caught it only because we had written the previous read down. And the cards on the dashboard itself have now been blank for a fourth consecutive day, so a reader cannot see any of this on the page meant to show it. We will report a restatement in the other direction with exactly the same prominence.

    Source: propr.xyz public endpoint /api/transparency/payouts/timeseries?range=all, read by us on 25 September 2026 at ~05:05 UTC and compared line by line with our own read of 24 September 2026 recorded in PROPR_ENDPOINT_READ_0924
21. ProprSeptember 24, 2026

    Propr passes $2,000,000 paid to traders — its own public data confirms the crossing happened that same day, and the 20% code 2MPAID runs until 30 September

    WHAT WAS POSTED. @ProprXYZ, 23 September 2026 at 14:48:56 UTC: “$2,000,000 payouts reached. Get 20% off all challenges for the next week.” One second later, a follow-up states the window in plain text: “Promotion runs until Wednesday, 30th Sept at 23:59 UTC.” The code itself is only in the attached graphic — 2MPAID, under the line “Get 20% off with code” — and the firm typed it out again at 14:54:46 UTC in reply to a trader asking for it. The post has 25,000 views, by some distance its most seen of the month. THE MILESTONE CHECKS OUT, AND WE CAN DATE IT. Propr publishes every payout day by day at /api/transparency/payouts/timeseries?range=all. We read it on 24 September 2026: 155 daily points starting 23 April 2026, lifetime $2,024,846.77 across 5,834 payouts. Cumulating in order, the $2,000,000 line is crossed ON 23 SEPTEMBER 2026 — the day opened at $1,983,293.14 across 5,720 payouts and closed at $2,024,623.04 across 5,833, so $16,706.86 of that day's $41,329.90 took it over. The series is daily, not hourly, so we cannot prove the counter had already passed $2M at the 14:48 UTC of the tweet; what we can say is that the crossing and the announcement fall on the same calendar day. That matters because it is an improvement: the $1,000,000 mark was crossed on 23 August and announced on 24 August, a day late, and Hypernova announced its own million 69 hours after the fact. THE NUMBER BEHIND THE NUMBER: THE SECOND MILLION TOOK 31 DAYS, THE FIRST TOOK 122. First payout in the series: 23 April 2026. $1,000,000 crossed 23 August, 122 days later. $2,000,000 crossed 23 September, 31 days after that — a four-fold acceleration, on the same calendar date two months running. September alone (1st to 24th) accounts for $762,669.02 across 1,783 payouts, or 37.7% of everything ever paid. The best single day on record is still 19 August at $118,995.42. Lou Regis's own line the same afternoon — “$2m paid out to traders in 5 months of beta” — is exact to the day: the first payout landed 23 April, five months earlier. THE OFFER, AND WHAT IS ACTUALLY NEW ABOUT IT. 20% off all challenges with code 2MPAID, from 23 September 14:48:56 UTC to 30 September 23:59 UTC. That is roughly 177 hours — BY FAR THE LONGEST DISCOUNT WINDOW PROPR HAS EVER RUN. For comparison, the six drops before September all ran 48 to 56 hours, and 3MILLION on 11 September ran about 84. It is also the second consecutive drop at 20% after six straight at 25%, so the cheaper-but-longer pattern is now a pattern and not a one-off. WHAT WE HAVE NOT CHECKED. We did not run a checkout, so we cannot confirm the code applies to every product or stacks with anything; the code is published verbatim by the firm in its own graphic and its own reply, which is the source, not a test. And the transparency dashboard this milestone is meant to be verified on has had its cards and charts down for three straight days — see our separate entry of today. The raw endpoints answer fine, which is how this check was possible at all.

    Source: @ProprXYZ on X, 23 September 2026 14:48:56 UTC (25,000 views), code read in the attached graphic and repeated by the firm at 14:54:46 UTC, window stated in its own follow-up of 14:48:57 UTC (x.com/ProprXYZ/status/2102772210272448995); audited by us on 24 September 2026 against propr.xyz's own public endpoint /api/transparency/payouts/timeseries?range=all (155 daily points, 23 April → 24 September 2026)
22. ProprSeptember 24, 2026

    Propr's transparency dashboard has rendered blank for three days running — the data is still there, the page that displays it is not

    WHAT WE SEE. We load propr.xyz/transparency every day for this watch. On 22, 23 and 24 September 2026 the page came up the same way: every Overview card reads “–” (Total Revenue, Annualized Run Rate, Total Payouts, Largest Single Payout, Median Time to Pay, Active Traders, Paid Traders, Funded Traders, Funded Trader AUM, Pass Rate), Hedging PnL reads $0.00, and all five charts — Traders over Time, Revenue, Funded Traders & Capital, Pass Rate over Time, Payouts History — sit on “Loading…” indefinitely. On the first two days we loaded it twice with a ten-second wait each time; today once. Three consecutive days. THE DATA IS NOT GONE, AND THAT IS THE IMPORTANT PART. On each of those days the endpoint behind the page, /api/transparency/payouts/timeseries?range=all, answered normally and to the cent — that is how we dated the $2,000,000 crossing and audited last week's payout tweet. So this is a rendering failure, not a data outage, and nothing about it suggests anything is being withheld. Two other endpoints are separately stale and should not be used by anyone reading along at home: /api/transparency/payouts (its stats block reads $11,133.23 over 17 payouts) and /api/transparency/payouts/leaderboard?range=7d (9 users, last entry 7 May 2026). WHY IT IS WORTH AN ENTRY ANYWAY. Propr sells verifiability. The dashboard's own headline is “Track every metric that matters… see exactly how Propr operates in real time”, and the firm routinely replies to its own announcements with a link to it — “All payouts settle onchain and are verifiable:” on 22 September, “View our data in real time:” on 18 September. During these three days it posted a weekly payout total, a trader spotlight and a $2,000,000 milestone. A reader who followed the firm's own invitation to check any of them landed on a page of dashes. That is a real cost to the one claim Propr is built on, and it is the third day, which is why we are recording it now rather than waiting. WHAT THIS IS NOT. It is not an accusation, it is not a solvency signal, and it is not a graveyard flag: payouts kept settling on-chain throughout, 113 of them on 23 September alone. It is a broken page on an otherwise working service, and we will note the day it comes back with the same prominence we are noting that it is down.

    Source: propr.xyz/transparency, loaded by us on 22, 23 and 24 September 2026 (two full loads with a 10-second wait on each of the first two days, one on the third); the underlying endpoint /api/transparency/payouts/timeseries?range=all answered normally on all three days
23. SectorSeptember 23, 2026

    Hypernova launches Nova Score, a 0–100 trader rating — the tweet says it unlocks funding and higher profit splits, the documentation says it currently changes nothing

    WHAT WAS POSTED. @HypernovaX, 22 September 2026 at 17:13:18 UTC, verbatim: “Introducing Nova Score. Our scaling system, powered by your trader rating. Unlock more funding, higher profit splits and accounts. Trade, build your score, scale.” Four minutes later, a follow-up links two things: the documentation at hypernova.xyz/docs/nova-score, and a Discord invite to the private beta. This is the firm's second main post in two days after ten days of silence — the first was the $1,000,000 milestone and the 90% split, which expires today at 16:39 UTC. WHAT THE DOCUMENTATION SAYS, IN ITS OWN WORDS. We read the page in full on 23 September 2026 at about 03:05 UTC. Two sentences decide how to read the tweet: “Nova Score is in beta and is currently informational. It does not change assessment pass or fail, payouts, risk limits, profit share, or account status.” And under the Perks heading: “Nova Score is intended to unlock perks for consistent traders, such as increased funding, wider risk limits, and monthly cash grants. Coming soon. Nova Score is still in beta. Perks, tiers, and unlock requirements are being defined and are not available yet.” So the tweet's “Unlock more funding, higher profit splits and accounts” describes an intention, not a feature you can use today, and the profit split it names is the one the documentation explicitly excludes. Today the score is a number on your profile and a rank. HOW THE SCORE IS BUILT, WHICH IS THE PART WORTH KNOWING. Five weighted components, each scored 0–100: Performance 35% (returns, profit factor, average net result per trade relative to size; deposits, withdrawals and payouts excluded), Risk control 30% (overall and daily drawdown, size of losing moves, measured against your account's limits), Consistency 20% (positive days, win rate, and how concentrated your profit is in your best trade and best three days), Discipline 10%, and Activity 5% (full credit at 20 closed trades across 8 trading days, nothing extra beyond). Discipline is binary and unforgiving: 100 with no breach, 0 with any breach of daily-loss or drawdown limits in the window. Scores are recomputed at UTC midnight on each account's trailing 30 days, weighted by confidence, then aged — the weight halves every 30 days and anything 180 days or older drops out. THREE DESIGN CHOICES A TRADER SHOULD READ TWICE. First, account size does not help: “At equal confidence, a $5k account and a $200k account count the same.” Second, failing does not clear your record — a failed or closed account keeps counting for 180 days, and the docs say plainly “Failure does not erase it.” Demo accounts are excluded; Assessment and Funded both count into one score. Third, confidence is asymmetric: it measures the evidence behind your score from 0 to 1 (full credit at 20 closed trades and 8 trading days), and it “pulls scores above 50 toward neutral; lower scores stay unchanged” — so thin evidence can only drag a good score down, never lift a bad one. Idle days lower confidence too. Maturity is No Score, Provisional (fewer than 20 closed trades in the latest 30-day window) or Established, and rank updates nightly, sorting by score then confidence, with a top X% and a 7-day change. WHAT WE ARE NOT SAYING. We have not seen a Nova Score on an account of our own, the beta is behind a Discord join, and no tier table, unlock threshold or grant amount exists yet to check. Hypernova's documented profit split remains 80% — the same page that describes Nova Score is the one saying it does not touch profit share — and the 90% promo running alongside it is a 48-hour offer, not a scaling perk. We will record the first tier table the moment one is published.

    Source: @HypernovaX on X, 22 September 2026 17:13:18 UTC (~10,000 views), with its own follow-up of 17:17:14 UTC (x.com/HypernovaX/status/2102447142325395458) linking the documentation; documentation page hypernova.xyz/docs/nova-score read by us in full on 23 September 2026 ~03:05 UTC
24. ProprSeptember 23, 2026

    Propr says it paid $318,139.53 to traders last week — the dollar figure matches its own on-chain data to the cent, the “515 payouts” in the same sentence does not

    WHAT WAS POSTED. @ProprXYZ, 22 September 2026 at 15:30:01 UTC: “This week's top earners. $318,139.53 total. 515 payouts.”, with a leaderboard graphic. The image did not load for us on three attempts, so we cannot report the individual names or amounts on it — only the two numbers in the text. This was the firm's first main post since a trader spotlight earlier the same morning, and only its third since 19 September. THE DOLLAR FIGURE IS EXACT, AND IT DATES THE WEEK. Propr publishes every payout day by day at /api/transparency/payouts/timeseries?range=all. We read it on 23 September 2026 at about 03:15 UTC: 154 daily points from 23 April 2026, lifetime $1,982,122.38 across 5,724 payouts. We then summed every contiguous window in that history and compared each to $318,139.53. Exactly one matches, to the cent: 15 SEPTEMBER → 21 SEPTEMBER 2026 inclusive. No other window in five months comes within two cents. So “this week” means Tuesday 15th to Monday 21st, the firm's own numbers confirm its own headline, and a reader can redo this check in a browser without taking anyone's word for it. That is rarer than it should be in this industry, and it deserves saying first. THE COUNT IN THE SAME SENTENCE DOES NOT MATCH. That same window holds 637 payouts, not 515 — a gap of 122, or 19.2% of the stated figure. We checked whether any window anywhere in the 154 days produces 515 payouts: several do, all of them in May, June and July, and none of them totals anything near $318,139.53. So the two numbers in the tweet do not come from the same count of the same thing. The honest reading is that “515” counts something narrower than “every payout transaction in the week” — unique earners, a filtered subset, or the rows shown on the graphic are all plausible — and the post does not say which. We could not settle it: the dashboard's per-trader leaderboard endpoint currently returns a stale fragment (9 users, 17 payouts, last entry 7 May 2026), so unique earners for that week cannot be counted from the public data today. WE ARE RECORDING IT, NOT ACCUSING ANYONE. A count that is too LOW understates the firm's own activity, which is the opposite direction from the errors that usually matter in prop-firm marketing. Nothing here suggests an inflated claim. It is logged because this site's rule is that every published number gets checked and every mismatch gets written down, including the ones that cut against the firm's interest. CONTEXT THE POST LEAVES OUT. The week is a strong one but not a record: $318,139.53 over 15–21 September against $183,464.33 over the previous week (8–14 September), a 73% jump in dollars on a 27% rise in payout count. The best seven-day window on record remains 19–25 August at $495,403.22 across 864 payouts. Since then the firm has paid $55,391.65 across 104 payouts on 22 September, putting lifetime payouts within $18,000 of $2,000,000. ONE MORE THING A READER CLICKING THROUGH WOULD HAVE HIT. The tweet's usual companion post points at the transparency dashboard. We loaded that dashboard twice on 23 September, waiting ten seconds each time: every Overview card still reads “–”, Hedging PnL still reads $0.00, and all five charts still say “Loading…”. That is the SECOND CONSECUTIVE DAY of the partial outage we recorded on 22 September. The underlying timeseries endpoints answer fine — which is how we audited the tweet at all — but a reader who clicks to verify sees an empty page.

    Source: @ProprXYZ on X, 22 September 2026 15:30:01 UTC (2,825 views); audited by us on 23 September 2026 ~03:15 UTC against propr.xyz's own public endpoint /api/transparency/payouts/timeseries?range=all (154 daily points, 23 April → 23 September 2026)
25. SectorSeptember 22, 2026

    Hypernova says it has paid traders $1,000,000 and raises its profit split to 90% for 48 hours — the milestone checks out on-chain, and was crossed three days before the announcement

    WHAT WAS POSTED. @HypernovaX, 21 September 2026 at 16:39:21 UTC, verbatim: “$1,000,000 paid out to traders. All settled by our smart contracts in <12s. To celebrate, 90% profit split for 48h.”, with a trophy graphic reading “$1,000,000 PAID OUT TO TRADERS”. One second later, a self-reply narrows it: “90% profit split only applies to newly purchased accounts within the next 48 hours. Full details in Discord.” That is the firm's first main post since 11 September 15:54 UTC — ten days of replies only. THE PART YOU CAN ACT ON, AND ITS DEADLINE. Hypernova's documented split is 80%: rulebook v1.1 says so, and we verified it ourselves on our own $25K funded account — a $699.43 request settled 559.546701 USDC on Arbitrum on 31 August 2026 (tx 0xf0c0…ac88), exactly 80% to the cent. So 90% is a real ten-point move on the only number that decides what a winning trader keeps. Three conditions, all from the firm's own words: it applies to NEWLY PURCHASED accounts only, so an account you already hold does not get it; the window runs 48 hours from the post, which ends 23 September 2026 at 16:39 UTC; and there is no promo code — the offer is not a code drop, which is why it does not appear in our promo-code badge. The “full details” live in a Discord behind a join, not on hypernova.xyz, and we have not read them. WE CHECKED THE MILLION, AND IT IS THERE. Propr publishes its competitor's payouts: its transparency dashboard exposes a public endpoint listing every Hypernova payout individually, and we read it on 22 September 2026 at about 02:45 UTC. It holds 1,100 payouts from 4 May 2026 to 22 September 2026 01:44:26 UTC, totalling $1,096,611.41, largest single payout $8,000. Cumulating them in order, the $1,000,000 mark was crossed on 18 SEPTEMBER 2026 AT 19:25:12 UTC, on the 993rd payout ($3,242.17). By the time the firm announced it, 69 hours and 14 minutes later, the counter already stood at $1,074,979 across 1,084 payouts. The milestone is real, it is checkable by a reader without trusting either firm, and the announcement is late rather than early — which is the opposite of the failure mode we usually record. TWO NUMBERS THAT DO NOT LINE UP, RECORDED NOT RESOLVED. First, speed: the post says settlement “in <12s”, while Hypernova's own /stats page gave an average payout time of 6.0 seconds over a 1,038-payout sample when we read it on 21 September. A ceiling and a mean are not the same claim, and the ceiling is the more conservative of the two — we note it because we have recorded every reading of that counter. Second, size: that same /stats page displayed lifetime payouts of $1,025,771 on 21 September, while the third-party on-chain series read about $1,075,000 the same day — a gap near $49K between two counts of the same thing. Windows, filters and what counts as a payout can all explain it; nothing on either page says which. WHAT WE ARE NOT SAYING. We have not bought an account inside this window and we have not seen a 90% payout settle, so we cannot tell you the 90% is honoured — only that the 80% was, on our own account, to the cent. We do not know whether the split reverts on 23 September for accounts bought during the window or stays at 90% for their life; the post does not say and the detail is in Discord. And the firm's own FAQ still states that funded accounts are simulated and that trader signals may feed its central book: the split is a share of a simulated result, paid in real USDC.

    Source: @HypernovaX on X, 21 September 2026 16:39:21 UTC, with its own self-reply of 16:39:22 UTC (x.com/HypernovaX/status/2102075222232793375) stating the restriction; milestone cross-checked by us on 22 September 2026 ~02:45 UTC against propr.xyz's public transparency endpoint /api/transparency/hypernova-payouts/timeseries?range=all, and against Hypernova's own /stats page as recorded in app/_data/hypernova-stats.ts (read 21 September 2026)
26. ProprSeptember 22, 2026

    A Propr trader hit “delete account” instead of “request payout” on a funded account — and the CEO voided the deletion in under three hours, which tells you deletion is a reversible request

    WHAT HAPPENED, WITH TIMESTAMPS. On 21 September 2026 at 01:48:55 UTC a user posted publicly to @ProprXYZ: “By mistake I clicked account deletion button instead of payout request from funded. Could you please correct my mistake as I would like to withdraw my funded account.” He pressed again at 01:52:04 and tagged the founder directly at 02:04:49. At 04:34:37 UTC — two hours and forty-six minutes after the first post, on a Sunday night — Lou, Propr's CEO, replied: “Voided the request, should be good.” The user confirmed at 05:25:20: “Thanks a ton Lou.” TWO FACTS A READER CAN USE. First, and this is the reason we are publishing a support thread: at Propr, deleting a funded account is a REQUEST, not an instantaneous act, and it can be voided by the firm after the fact. Anyone who has ever mis-clicked in a trading app knows the difference between a destructive button and a revocable one, and until today we could not tell you which this was. Second, the deletion control sits close enough to the payout control in the funded-account interface that a funded trader confused the two while trying to withdraw. That is a UI observation, made by the person it happened to, not by us. WHAT THIS IS NOT. It is one case, resolved by the founder personally, on a public timeline, for a user who tagged him three times. Nothing here tells you the same reversal happens through the ordinary support queue, or for someone without a public account, or after a longer delay — and nothing tells you how long the voidable window is. We also do not know what state the account is in now, beyond “should be good” and the user's thanks. The rulebook records we hold contain no deletion or cancellation clause at all, so we are not saying the firm broke or followed its own rule; we are saying the rule is not published and the behaviour was only observable because someone made a mistake in public. CONTEXT WORTH ONE LINE. This is the second run in a row where a founder handles a payment-adjacent incident in the open, and it is the same user who, two days earlier, had sent an assessment fee to the wrong chain at Hypernova and was told to open a Discord ticket — a comparison we record without drawing a verdict from a sample of one on each side. Propr's own bug from 7 September, the crypto payment failure, is still without a public fix note fifteen days on.

    Source: @louisregis (Lou, CEO of Propr) on X, 21 September 2026 04:34:37 UTC, replying to the public request of @crypto01101981 posted at 01:48:55 UTC (x.com/crypto01101981/status/2101851132305846462) and acknowledged by the same user at 05:25:20 UTC
27. SectorSeptember 21, 2026

    Hypernova's displayed payout reserve fell from $958.4K to $774.5K in six days while its displayed lifetime payouts rose past $1M — and a Fast Track path now offers to skip the assessment entirely

    WHAT WE READ. On 21 September 2026 the hypernova.xyz homepage stats bar displayed: payout reserve $774.5K, lifetime payouts $1.03M, average payout time 6.0s, funded trader AuM $4.72M, traded volume $5.85B, 7-day volume $1.32B, 1,905 active traders over 30 days. Our previous read of the same bar, on 15 September, gave $958.4K, $852.8K, 5.9s, $3.76M, $4.90B and 1,742. WHAT MOVED AND WHAT IT MEANS. Two figures moved hard and in opposite directions: the displayed reserve is down $183.9K in six days, and displayed lifetime payouts are up $177.2K over the same window. Those two are close enough that the reserve drain is consistent with payout flow alone — which is the benign reading, and the one the firm would give. We record it rather than conclude it, because the reserve has twice been topped up mid-window this month and we did not read the chain today. One caveat on the counter itself, from our separate daily registry sweeps: it read $798.1K on 19 September and $774.5K on both 20 and 21 September — the same value to the tenth of a thousand two days running, which is as consistent with a cached page value as with a live counter that happened not to move. The one figure that got worse rather than better is the average payout time: 6.0s, back to where it was on 31 August, after 5.8s on 14 September and 5.9s on 15 September. It is a tenth of a second and it is self-reported; we record it because we have recorded every other reading of the same counter. WHAT IS NEW ON THE PAGE. Two things that were not there in our records. First, the $5k account size now appears in the public pricing configurator alongside 10k/25k/50k/100k/200k — our compare grid carried it as in-app only, from the 17 August read, and that is now out of date. Second, a 'Fast Track' tab sits beside 'Assessment': connect your trading history from Hyperliquid, Binance or Bybit, receive a free trading score, and 'qualifying traders can skip the assessment entirely'. A prop firm that lets you skip the paid evaluation is selling a different product to a different person, and we have no idea what the qualifying bar is — the page does not say. The 25K fees are unchanged at $120 tight / $275 low / $365 medium, as are the published drawdowns (3% static / 6% static / 7% static). The pass rates read 19.3% / 20.1% / 32.2% against the 19.6% tight we recorded on 14 September. The 'closed beta · invite only' badge is still on the page, seven weeks after the firm went public. WHAT WE ARE NOT SAYING. Every figure above is displayed by the firm and none of it was verified on-chain today: arbiscan.io would not return the reserve wallet page to our reader, so the last chain reading we hold is still the automated one of 19 September. We have not tested Fast Track and we do not know whether anyone has actually skipped an assessment through it.

    Source: hypernova.xyz homepage, read by us on 21 September 2026 (weekly run); compared against our own 15 September 2026 read of the same counters, recorded in app/_data/first-hand.ts, and against our daily registry sweeps of 19, 20 and 21 September
28. SectorSeptember 21, 2026

    Carrot Funding is preparing a bank-transfer payout rail through “Trusted Banking Partners” — the first non-on-chain payout path at a firm that sells on-chain receipts

    WHAT WE READ. On 21 September 2026 the “Fast, Transparent Payouts” section of carrotfunding.io lists two payout methods side by side. The first, “Digital Asset Payout”, is the one we already knew: USDC straight to your wallet. The second, “Bank Transfer”, carries a “Coming Soon” badge and one line of copy — “Get paid through our Trusted Banking Partners.” No partner is named, no jurisdiction, no date, no fee. WHY WE ARE RECORDING IT. Carrot's entire differentiator, and the reason it scores where it does on this site, is that it publishes the Arbiscan transaction hash of every payout — we verified four of four on 10 September. A bank rail does not produce a hash. Whatever else it is, it is a payout path that cannot be checked from outside the firm, arriving at a firm whose homepage headline is “The Verifiable Prop Firm”. That is not an accusation; it is the thing to watch when it ships, because it will decide whether the on-chain receipt stays the default or becomes the option. WHAT ELSE MOVED ON THE PAGE. The challenge grid is unchanged from our 10 September rulebook read: 2-Phase $65 / $119 / $239 / $449 / $699 across $5K to $100K, 1-Phase $75 / $129 / $249 / $499, same five sizes, 80% split on both, $100K the top account. The asset count is now stated as “175+ assets across crypto, commodities, stocks, and indices”. The firm's own Trustpilot badge on the page reads 4.6 across 22 reviews. One internal contradiction is worth flagging and we are not resolving it here: the 2-Phase pricing cards state a Max Loss of 10%, while the “Complete The Evaluation” step immediately below describes the same 2-Phase as keeping “your Max Loss below 8%”. Our data carries 10%, from the rulebook §03 read of 10 September. We have not re-read the rulebook today, so we are leaving our figure alone and recording the discrepancy instead. WHAT WE ARE NOT SAYING. Bank Transfer is not live. No trader has been paid through it, because there is nothing to be paid through yet. We have not asked Carrot who the banking partners are.

    Source: carrotfunding.io homepage, read by us on 21 September 2026 (weekly run), “Fast, Transparent Payouts” section
29. SectorSeptember 21, 2026

    Solana Funded names its operator in the footer — SolaraX Markets FZCO, a Dubai free-zone company — and sells four challenge formats, not one, with a five-day minimum on every size

    THE OPERATOR. The legal footer of solanafunded.com, read on 21 September 2026, states: “All content published and distributed by SolaraX Markets FZCO, located at Building A1, Dubai Business Park, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, operating under the brand Solana Funded”. An FZCO is a United Arab Emirates free-zone company. Our entity registry carried no operator for this firm at all. This is published, in the clear, on the homepage — we simply had not read down far enough, and we are recording it rather than quietly backfilling it. The same footer states the firm “does not accept client deposits” and that its services “consist solely of simulated trading activities”. THE PRODUCT GRID WE DID NOT HAVE. Our comparator carried Solana Funded as accounts from $2,500 to $100K and little else. The live grid sells four distinct formats on six sizes: 1 Step, 1 Step Elite, 2 Step and 2 Step Elite. The two families are not the same trade. Standard caps you at five simultaneous open positions, asks a 45% profit target and gives 25% max drawdown. Elite removes the position cap entirely, raises the target to 50% and tightens max drawdown to 20%. Both run a 10% daily drawdown measured end-of-day from the previous day's higher of balance or equity, both require a minimum of five trading days, and both carry a funded-phase reset fee that scales with account size. A 45–50% profit target with a 20–25% drawdown is a memecoin risk profile, not a perps one, and it should be read as such next to the 8–12% targets elsewhere in this registry. THREE MORE THINGS ON THE PAGE. First, the tier selector now has three tabs — Memes, Predictions and Model — where our records only ever had memecoins; we have no rules or prices for the latter two and are not guessing at them. Second, KYC: the FAQ states no identity verification is required to trade or withdraw until a trader passes $100,000 in cumulative withdrawals, at which point Veriff is used. Third, and we record it because a reader deserves to know what they are looking at: the testimonial block on the homepage pairs real-sounding trader quotes with body text that is still Lorem ipsum placeholder, unreplaced. WHAT WE ARE NOT SAYING. The prices displayed on the grid were struck through and discounted on the day we read, with no published end date, so we have deliberately copied none of them into our comparator — a promo figure caught on one day is not a catalogue price. We have not bought, traded or been paid by this firm; it remains desk research and stays capped accordingly. We make no claim about SolaraX Markets FZCO beyond the fact that the firm publishes that name.

    Source: solanafunded.com homepage, read by us on 21 September 2026 (weekly run): legal footer, challenge-tier grid and FAQ
30. SectorSeptember 21, 2026

    Kraken published a prop-firm buyer's guide on 18 September that recasts Breakout as one of three Kraken prop products — and states, as the owner, the rules we had logged as “not stated”

    WHAT WAS PUBLISHED. On 18 September 2026 the Kraken Learn team published “Best crypto prop firms 2026: Kraken's three paths, compared”. It is a category buyer's guide with an unusually frank disclosure at the top — “Kraken owns and operates all three of the Kraken products in this guide” — and it puts Breakout in a three-column table beside two siblings we had not registered as prop products at all: Kraken Funded, which lives inside the Kraken consumer mobile app, and Kraken Pro Prop, which runs on the Kraken Pro terminal. All three are described as running on the same shared infrastructure. WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT BREAKOUT, AND WHAT WE CHANGED. Three lines in that table are primary-source statements by the firm's owner. Breakout funds up to $200K; payouts are on-demand in USDC within roughly 24 hours; and across all three Kraken prop products there are, in the guide's words, “no consistency rules, no minimum trading days, and no time limits”. Our comparator carried Breakout's time limit as “Not stated” and its payout line without a delay. Both are now replaced and attributed to this guide, dated. The split line needed no change: the guide says “80% default distribution upgradable to 90% at checkout”, which is exactly what we published on 14 September after retiring the old “95% conditional” tier. Breakout's drawdown is given as roughly 3–6% static and its profit target as roughly 9–12% depending on the path; we have not re-read Breakout's own rulebook, so we are not moving our grid on those two. ONE CONTRADICTION INSIDE KRAKEN'S OWN PAGE. The comparison table gives Kraken Funded “Accounts up to $200K”. The product card for the same Kraken Funded, further down the same page, reads “Trade up to $10K of Kraken's capital.” Those cannot both describe the same product. We are recording it without resolving it, exactly as we would for any other firm contradicting itself in two places. WHY IT MATTERS FOR THIS REGISTRY. Breakout entered our registry as an independent firm that Kraken bought in September 2025. This guide is the point at which its owner stops presenting it as a standalone brand and starts selling it as the advanced tier of a three-product ladder, with the operator named as Payward Oceanic Ltd. and the whole programme labelled “an unregulated service” in the disclaimer. Whether Kraken Funded and Kraken Pro Prop belong in this registry as entities of their own is a call for Raphael, not for an automated run, and we have made no change to the registry. WHAT WE ARE NOT SAYING. We have not read breakoutprop.com today, have never bought or traded a Breakout evaluation, and everything above comes from a document published by the company that owns the firm it assesses.

    Source: “Best crypto prop firms 2026: Kraken's three paths, compared”, Kraken Learn team, published 18 September 2026, read by us on 21 September 2026