Before / after
| Text | Source | Read | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Before | Our 5 September read covered the public homepage only, and the homepage described one evaluation: a single phase, a 10% profit target, a 5% static max drawdown and a 3% max daily drawdown. We compared that to the GitBook rulebook, which describes two phases, 9% static, 5% daily and a minimum-profitable-days rule, and published the gap as a contradiction inside the firm. | hyperpnl.com homepage vs hyperpnl.gitbook.io/docs/challenges-101/evaluation-rules | 5 September 2026 |
| After | First observation on 9 September 2026, from inside a free demo account: the Start Challenge checkout carries two tabs and sells two products. 1-Step Flex — $42 / $86 / $215 for the $5,000, $10,000 and $25,000 accounts, 10% target, 3% max daily drawdown, 5% static max overall drawdown, and no minimum-profitable-days line displayed. 2-Step Flex — $50 / $90 / $213 for the same sizes, 10% then 5%, 5% daily, 9% static, two profitable days in Phase 1 and three in Phase 2. Each set of numbers belongs to one product, so the contradiction we published was our own error. We do not know when the 2-Step appeared: our 5 September read was of the homepage only, so this is dated as the day we first saw it, not as the day it changed. What we can date is the asymmetry: the public GitBook rulebook documents the 2-Step and never the 1-Step, and on our $25,000 demo running the 1-Step limits the Performance Guard displayed and counted a "Min Profitable Day Trigger" of $125 — 0.5% of the starting balance, exactly the threshold the docs describe for the 2-Step — a rule the 1-Step checkout does not mention. CORRECTION, same day, from a paid account: that last sentence was wrong and we withdraw it. On our own 1-Step Flex $5,000, bought for $42 that afternoon, the Performance Guard shows two separate lines — "Min Profitable Day Trigger −$26.65 / $25" and "Min Profitable Days 0 / 0". The dollar figure is the threshold at which a day would COUNT as profitable (0.5% of the balance); the counter below it is how many are REQUIRED, and it reads zero out of zero. The 1-Step demands no profitable day at all, the checkout was right to show no such line, and the two-then-three profitable days belong to the 2-Step alone. | app.hyperpnl.com — Start Challenge checkout and Performance Guard (login required), app v1.4.131, against hyperpnl.gitbook.io/docs/challenges-101/evaluation-rules | 9 September 2026 |
Proof
- https://hyperpnl.gitbook.io/docs/challenges-101/evaluation-rules
- app.hyperpnl.com — Start Challenge checkout, both tabs, read 9 September 2026 (login required)
- app.hyperpnl.com — Performance Guard on a $25,000 demo account, read 9 September 2026 (login required)
In context
- HyperPNL — the fiche
- HyperPNL: the $200K tier disappears from the pricing page; $50K and $100K still 'Soon' (10 August 2026)
- HyperPNL: our own $42 purchase left no on-chain trace of the firm — observed 9 September 2026 (9 September 2026)
- All documented rulebook changes
FAQ
Did HyperPNL announce this change?
Observed on our account, not yet in the rulebook. Before: read 5 September 2026 on hyperpnl.com homepage vs hyperpnl.gitbook.io/docs/challenges-101/evaluation-rules. After: read 9 September 2026 on app.hyperpnl.com — Start Challenge checkout and Performance Guard (login required), app v1.4.131, against hyperpnl.gitbook.io/docs/challenges-101/evaluation-rules.
What does it change for a live account?
Which rules govern your account depends on the tab you clicked at checkout, and only one of the two products has a written rulebook. If you buy the 1-Step — the cheaper ticket at every size except $25,000 — the checkout screen is the whole of your documentation. Screenshot that screen the day you pay. No profitable day is required on the 1-Step: the app tracks the metric, it does not impose it.