I like trading. Founder: @PipBack_com
Compare Prop Firms →
Joined December 2021
- Tweets3.5K
- Following275
- Followers79.3K
- Likes5.6K
Pinned Tweet
I'm extremely biased, but yesterday's drama proves why we built PipBack.
Transparency for traders, and it forces prop firms to improve.
Arjo retweeted
Are we still on the "deceitful marketing algo"? Hey @PropFirmMatch, did you knowingly push an update that stuffs cookies when people aren’t clicking links advertised in the code as external websites?
Here’s what happens: someone clicks the profile page or copy code link that links to the internal page and your javascript handler redirects the original tab through an affiliate link to the firm’s website and opens the intended link a new tab... sounds pretty knowing to me.
You even ban your affiliates from forcing cookies.. but you can, huh?
Some pretty big affiliates have gone to prison for cookie stuffing.
I used @MattLeech's MFFU as an example in this video but this happens on most firms listed on their website (I didn't check them all).
Firms are banning traders for deceitful marketing, if this isn't deceitful what is?
"at no point did we tie payouts to A-Booking"
So the video I made seems to have been right in its conclusion?
I appreciate the response, thank you for clearing it up.
No need to DM, we're happy to have a convo in public.
1. Eval and Instant account fees do contribute to revenue! Like any prop system, this offsets traders who get funded and blow their account instantly. Trading fees also contribute to revenue as well.
2. We don't lose when a funded trader closes a winning trade.
Maybe we missed something but at no point did we tie payouts to A-Booking. Vest Capital is designed as an A-Book system simply because the orders are routed to an open CLOB on Vest Exchange, where anyone can execute taker or maker orders (try it for yourself!)
We believe that the way Vest is designed is a more sustainable business model overall, which benefits funded traders who rely on the firm to be profitable! We know that a concept of a company that is both profitable and acting in the interest of the trading community is a bit hard to grok given the track record of most prop firms, but we do our best and it's one of the reasons why we started with instant, no minimum payouts requests to demonstrate that we're committed to creating something that prioritizes trader experience.
Also it's worth saying that we appreciate your diligence and rigor in keeping the industry honest, even if from our perspective it feels like you're operating from a guilty until proven innocent MO.
Arjo retweeted
Read the whole thing. One question it never answers: who is the market maker?
Your definition of A book is orders that "fill against other participants." But anyone CAN take the other side isn't anyone DOES. Vest's NQ book is quoted by one maker posting symmetrical levels all day, and in this morning's snapshots most price levels were only that maker's blocks. So most funded fills hit that one maker.
If that maker is Vest, a funded trader winning means Vest losing. That's your own B book definition. Naming the maker settles it in one sentence, and the article doesn't. "Directionally aligned with funded traders" only works if the other side isn't you, and you haven't said it isn't.
On the terms: an iTunes nuclear weapons joke isn't the same as your terms saying every account, including instant funded, is "simulated," payouts come from "general corporate funds," you "do not represent that payouts are funded by profitable live trading," and you can "act contrary to Trade Ideas."
You also confirmed NQ-USD is less liquid than CME and its tape can look completely different. That's what I showed, and funded accounts get judged on that thinner book at your leverage.
So I'll ask again:
Who quotes the book?
What share of funded volume fills against that maker?
How are mark and index calculated? (docs say an aggregate of NASDAQ, NYSE, CME and BlueOcean, you just said the CME feed)
How many traders are on real live capital?
What is your daily revenue, fees and TVL from the live exchange (not the prop)?
That's all public for Vest Classic on DefiLlama: TVL peaked at $31M in Oct 2025 and is about $231K today, down over 99%. Monthly fees fell from $1.53M last August to $32K this month. Why isn't Vest Markets tracked too? Was the rebrand about hiding that?
It should be pretty easy for you to answer these and then you would shut every doubter like me up instantly.
Arjo retweeted
Over 85% of payouts went through cleanly at the top 3 prop firms (plus one that may surprise you)
July to September, from our monthly audit:
• TakeProfitTrader: 91.3%
• Lucid Trading: 87.0%
• MyFundedFutures: 85.5%
TakeProfitTrader's lowest month was a very solid 89.8%, and daily payouts on PRO accounts were the standout.
Lucid Trading reviewers say payouts land in their bank within minutes or hours of requesting them, and the rules are easy to follow. Most of its payout complaints came from traders caught up in its crackdown on coordinated hedging, which started in August.
MyFundedFutures dipped to 81.4% in August but bounced back to 86.2% in September, with reviewers praising support for fixing problems fast.
The surprise: Apex Trader Funding. After months of slow-payout complaints, it jumped from 45.0% to 84.8% in September, and praise for payout speed outnumbered delay complaints for the first time. We'll be watching whether October continues the trend.
Full breakdown: pipback.com/firms
The noise regarding Vest is now turning into "yeah but they pay"
My point exactly! Affiliates don't care about fraud if it benefits them.
If you don't like what Lanto did with his false claims, why do you like what Vest does with false claims? Because it benefits you.
Arjo retweeted
Vest is a scam.
Their NQ-PERP is supposed to mirror CME's Nasdaq future. It doesn't move like it.
I went through every minute of Vest's NQ against CME from Oct 15 to 25. Vest moves more, it makes moves CME never made, and when it moves on its own, it mostly moves down.
Arjo retweeted
Great video, I find it interesting how there has been no response to quite reasonable questions.
I understand wanting to avoid others copying, but huge claims need at least a little explanation to be convincing.
For all associated with Vest, you might want to double check their founder’s claims:
youtu.be/U7kSu1pt6Fc
For all associated with Vest, you might want to double check their founder’s claims:
youtu.be/U7kSu1pt6Fc
I had a meeting with @VestExchange and they said they are still researching the STONK and LANTO Debacle.
I made it very clear I will no longer promote VEST and their product after many questions that I had that they cannot answer.
There is ZERO chance they are A booking like they claim. It won’t be a question of if but when they will run into liquidity issues.
There seems to be some confusion, I’m calling out Vest for their “we win when you win” A-booking all funded traders claims.
Which based on their own documentation and talk, doesn’t seem to be true.
So, as I said, keep that same energy.
How is no affiliate of Vest questioning whether the "we win when you win" claims are true?
You have people saying, "Stop crying, who cares?"
If they're indeed lying, you do realize that's literal fraud?
Which is ironic after recently seeing Vest affiliates making fun of someone promoting fraud on Vest.
You're telling me that they've been around since late 2025 and all this time they've been A-booking all funded traders as they claim (yes, this is confirmed with support), yet they've never taken a day's time to write out how it works.
All questions regarding it are ignored. I've sent an email to support, a chat to support, a DM to Justin the founder, and a reply to their main investor; all got ignored.
The message I sent in the Discord got deleted.
I guess it's easy to turn a blind eye when you're making 20% commission on expensive accounts?
