• Hidden trading rules often matter more than profit splits.
• Compare drawdown and payout rules before buying a challenge.
• Rulebook transparency helps traders avoid costly surprises.

HONG KONG, July 29, 2026 — Velotrade today released its 2026 Prop Firm Transparency Report, a comparative review of the published rulebooks of six proprietary trading firms, Topstep, FTMO, FundingPips, Blue Guardian, HyroTrader and Velotrade.

The report examines the terms that determine whether a funded trader is ultimately paid, and concludes that most funded accounts are closed not because of poor trading, but because of rules set out in evaluation guides and help-center pages.

According to the report, across more than 300,000 funded accounts, only around 7% of traders ever drew a payout, and the reason typically had little to do with trading ability.

The report is intended, Velotrade said, to help traders compare firms on the terms that most often decide a payout rather than on profit splits alone.

Its central finding is that a trader can clear every stage of a challenge and close a position in profit, yet still have the account terminated over a clause that was not read at the point of purchase.

“Could a trader read our rules once, in one sitting, and know every way their account could end?

If the answer is no, the rulebook is not finished. Most of this industry has treated that as a marketing problem.

We think it is the entire product,” said Gianluca Pizzituti, Chief Executive Officer of Velotrade.

Rules, not losing trades, account for most closures

The report cites two separate industry datasets in support of its central claim:

• In a 2024 study by FPFX Tech covering more than 300,000 accounts (reported via Finance Magnates), just 7% of traders ever reached a payout, and only about 14% cleared a challenge in the first place.
• A separate 500,000-trader analysis by hoc-trade found that roughly 70% of failures came from hitting loss limits, not from missing profit targets.
• Consistency rules can erase 33% to 50% of the profit made on a single strong day. Four of the six firms reviewed apply one.

Taken together, the report argues, the figures point to a consistent conclusion: the trade is seldom the issue, the rulebook is.

A market expanding as firms fail

The report situates its findings against rapid growth in the sector.

It notes that monthly searches for “prop firm” climbed from roughly 880 in early 2020 to about 49,500 by 2025, a 56-fold increase, drawing waves of first-time buyers into an industry whose decisive terms sit off the sales page.

That growth, the report states, has been accompanied by high-profile failures.

After MetaQuotes withdrew MT4 and MT5 licenses from prop firms serving US clients in February 2024, several prominent names collapsed.

The report records that The Funded Trader halted operations and later acknowledged more than $2 million in denied payouts; True Forex Funds shut down citing insolvency, leaving roughly 300 traders owed $1.2 million; and SurgeTrader closed within days, with its CEO conceding that about 10% of payout obligations went unpaid.

The same trade, two firms, two outcomes

Every prop account has a maximum-loss line, the report explains, but firms set it in fundamentally different ways, and the difference can decide the identical trade twice.

A fixed drawdown is set from the starting balance and does not shift: on a $100,000 account with a 10% limit, the account fails at $90,000. A trailing drawdown rises with equity and does not fall back.

To illustrate, the report models one account through both approaches.

An ordinary day-seven pullback bottoms out about $10,000 above a fixed $90,000 floor, leaving the account intact and finishing up roughly $6,500.

Under a trailing floor that has ratcheted up near the peak, the report states, the very same dip breaches the line and closes the account outright.

It notes that FTMO anchors its maximum loss at 10% of the starting balance, while Topstep’s trailing limit rises with the end-of-day balance and locks at the start.

Neither firm conceals its model, the report says, but the distinction between fixed and trailing is decisive rather than a footnote.

Consistency rules and the penalty for a strong day

A consistency rule limits how much of a trader’s total profit can come from any one session, the report explains, meaning a trader can perform strongly and still fail.

Under a 40% single-day cap with a $1,000 target, it notes, a strong $450 session represents 45% of profit, over the line, so the evaluation fails even though the target was met.

According to the report, Topstep, FundingPips, Blue Guardian and HyroTrader each apply a version of the rule, during evaluation or on a payout tier, and FTMO applies a 50% Best Day Rule on its 1-Step product, documented in its help center rather than the headline rules.

It adds that the tightest single-day caps tend to sit on the most attractive payout options, and that Velotrade applies no consistency rule at any stage.

For readers weighing the crypto-focused end of the market, Velotrade’s rundown of the top crypto prop firms sets these terms out side by side.

The rule that can close a profitable trade

Loss limits close the most accounts, the report states, but it identifies a quieter rule as the hardest to anticipate, because it can shut an account on a trade that never closes at a loss.

The report describes a max-risk-per-trade rule, which caps how much any single position or trade idea may lose at any moment, measured on unrealized, floating profit and loss rather than on closed trades.

It sits beneath the advertised daily loss limit.

If an open trade’s paper loss so much as touches the cap intraday, even for a second, the report explains, the rule can trigger and the account is closed, even if that trade would have gone on to close in profit.

The report identifies three features that make the rule easy to miss at the point of purchase:

• It is measured on unrealized loss, so the trade never has to close in the red.
• It can switch on only after funding, meaning a trader can pass the entire evaluation without ever meeting the rule that then governs the funded account.
• It can aggregate re-entries, so closing a losing trade and reopening in the same direction can combine the losses toward the cap.

The report notes that firms name the rule differently. Blue Guardian’s “Guardian Shield” force-closes trades near 1-2% unrealized (depending on account type), with a first breach cutting the split to 50% and a second closing the account.

FundingPips applies a “Risk Per Trade Idea” rule at the funded stage that aggregates re-entries. HyroTrader requires a stop-loss within five minutes of every trade, monitored live.

Velotrade, the report states, publishes no secondary per-trade or per-idea cap beneath its daily limit.

None of these is illegitimate as risk management, the report says. Its argument concerns placement: a rule that can end a funded account arguably belongs next to the price, not several pages into a help center.

The six rulebooks, side by side

The report’s full rulebook comparison sets all six firms against the terms that most often decide a payout.

Velotrade noted that, because it both published the report and appears in the final column, that column reflects a market participant’s own position rather than a neutral grade, and said traders should verify current terms directly with each firm.

The comparison, as published in the report, is reproduced below.

Source: each firm’s own published rules pages, help-center articles and FAQs, captured July 2026. “Varies by product” means the answer differs across a firm’s account types. Terms change frequently, so confirm current conditions before purchasing.

Where the established firms lead

The report is candid about the other side of the ledger. As a prop firm, Velotrade is new, having launched its challenges in 2026, while FTMO (2015) and Topstep (2012) have run trader evaluations for far longer.

Paying out funded traders at scale, the report acknowledges, is something only time proves, and on that specific record the incumbents have years of history while Velotrade is early.

It notes that several firms also scale funded accounts well beyond Velotrade’s $200,000 ceiling and support more platforms, and advises traders to weigh a clean rulebook and a paid-out track record together.

A ten-minute check before buying a challenge

The report’s practical recommendation is that ten minutes spent reading the terms may matter more than any comparison of profit splits. Drawing on its review of six prop firm rulebooks, it advises traders to establish:

• Drawdown mechanics: fixed from the initial balance or trailing equity? If trailing, end-of-day or tick-by-tick, and when does it lock?
• Consistency rules: evaluation, funded, or both? Tied to a payout tier? What is the exact single-day cap?
• Per-trade caps: is there a secondary cap beneath the daily limit, does it measure unrealized losses, and does it aggregate re-entries?
• Funded-stage changes: do rules activate, tighten or disappear once funded, and does the account start at a reduced balance?
• Payout conditions: minimum trading days, withdrawal frequency, first-payout waiting periods, and whether a payout can be declined at the firm’s discretion.
• Where it is written: are all account-ending rules on a single page, and can support point to each one in writing?

Regulatory attention is increasing

The report notes growing regulatory scrutiny of the sector.

The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission is expected to open a public consultation on 1 August 2026 (comments close 30 November 2026) on whether challenge fees amount to “commodity-pool participation interests”, a designation that could bring evaluation-based US futures prop firms under CFTC and NFA registration.

In Europe, the report states, the FCA and ESMA have reiterated that prop marketing to retail must carry prominent risk warnings and drop misleading performance claims, and regulators in Europe, Australia and North America are examining whether charging a fee without delivering funding resembles a pay-to-play model.

None of this is settled law, the report cautions, and some bodies, including CySEC and, for now, ESMA, have signalled that prop trading is not an immediate priority.

But the direction of travel, it argues, is toward standardised, upfront disclosure, the same shift most other consumer financial products have already made.

Conclusion

The report concludes that the prop model itself is sound, since backing skilled traders with firm capital is a reasonable idea, and that what lags is disclosure at the point of sale.

Comparing rulebooks, it argues, deserves at least the same weight traders give to comparing profit splits, because the rulebook, in the end, decides whether the split is ever paid.

About Velotrade

Velotrade is a proprietary trading firm offering funded trading challenges across crypto, forex, stocks, indices and commodities, built around a single, fully published rulebook and a fixed drawdown model.

The firm puts transparency at the center of its offering, aiming to ensure that every rule capable of ending an account is disclosed in one place before a trader buys.

Velotrade Re Limited is incorporated and registered in Hong Kong, where its founding team has operated a licensed invoice-finance business since 2016, with founders drawn from JP Morgan, Bank of America and Dresdner Kleinwort.

All trading services are provided in a simulated environment using demo accounts with simulated funds. For more information, visit velotrade.com.

Media Contact: Velotrade Press Office, [email protected]

Disclaimer: This press release is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures and firm terms are drawn from Velotrade’s 2026 Prop Firm Transparency Report and publicly available sources as of mid-2026; terms change frequently, and readers should verify current conditions directly with each firm before purchasing any evaluation. Trading carries significant risk.

This article is authored by a third party, and CoinJournal does not endorse or take responsibility for its content, accuracy, quality, advertisements, products, or materials. Readers should independently research and exercise due diligence before making decisions related to the mentioned company.

Freehand has raised $75 million to expand AI agents that handle invoices, supplier negotiations, payments, and other supply-chain tasks for large companies.

Freehand secures $75 million from US investors

Battery Ventures and NewRoad Capital Partners co-led the round, with Nexus Venture Partners and PSP Growth also participating. Former US Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker runs PSP Growth.

Freehand did not disclose the funding round’s valuation or specify whether it issued equity, debt, or another security. Battery Ventures general partner Dharmesh Thakker will join the startup’s board as part of the transaction.

The funding follows Freehand’s emergence from stealth in February. The company says its software is already used by Meta, Unilever, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Dunkin’, and Cardinal Health, although it has not disclosed the size or duration of those commercial agreements.

Unilever confirmed it had adopted the technology for supply-chain work.

“Freehand marks one of the first full-scale agentic deployments at Unilever,” Matt Algar, the company’s global vice-president of supply chain, said.

Algar described the deployment as a shift “from software that assists to software that runs our supply chain.”

How Freehand’s AI agents manage company spending

Freehand focuses on the procure-to-pay process, beginning with invoices. Its AI agents can review contracts, negotiate supplier rates, identify overbilling, process payments, and reconcile transactions inside a customer’s enterprise resource planning system.

These jobs have traditionally required a mix of legacy software and outsourced back-office teams. Freehand is betting that companies will increasingly use autonomous software to complete the work instead of only producing recommendations for human employees.

Its system uses what the company calls a Category Context Graph. The data structure connects information from emails and documents with transaction records stored inside company systems, creating a history of decisions, exceptions, and spending within each category.

Freehand claims early customers completed workflows five to seven times faster and reduced procure-to-pay cycles by more than 70%. It also says some customers recovered between 5% and 10% of spending in complex categories, but those figures have not been independently audited.

US supply-chain costs create an opening for AI

Freehand is targeting a large segment of American business spending. US companies spend more than $20 trillion annually on materials, logistics, data centers, and services, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis figures cited by the startup.

The company estimates that enterprises also spend $16 billion each year on supply-chain software and $348 billion on workers handling tasks that existing systems cannot complete. Those figures are Freehand’s estimates rather than independently verified market totals.

Tariffs, taxes, and tighter immigration rules are adding costs to the outsourcing model used by many US companies. Freehand argues that these pressures could encourage businesses to automate more finance and supply-chain operations.

Funding continues across AI, fintech, and crypto infrastructure

Freehand’s round comes amid continued investor interest in software that automates financial and operational processes. Financial infrastructure startup Augustus raised $180 million in a Series B round at a $1 billion valuation to connect traditional payment networks with stablecoins and continuous settlement.

As crypto.news previously reported, World Foundation secured $52.5 million through a strategic WLD token sale to expand its World ID network. All tokens purchased in that transaction will remain locked for one year.

Robinhood Chain launch platform Memecoin.Fun also raised $3.5 million through USDG. The platform plans to develop launchpad infrastructure, cross-chain bridge functions, and tools supporting memecoins across several blockchains.

Freehand will use its new capital to move beyond invoice checking and payments. Its longer-term plan is to deploy agents across more supply-chain processes and spending categories, placing the company in direct competition with procurement platforms, business-process outsourcing firms, and established enterprise software providers.

Before Max’s death, Sara and Max discover an opening that could lead outside the cave. However, they realize the drop is too high to escape safely. Their plan is to wait for the tide to rise, allowing them to jump safely into the ocean from the opening without risking a dangerous fall.

After Max dies, Sara is alone inside the cave. She uses the flare she was carrying to distract the shark and force it away. With it still following her, Sara creates a trap using the unstable rocks inside the cave. She draws the shark toward her and causes it to repeatedly crash into the rocks, until they eventually collapse and crush the shark.

After defeating the shark, Sara searches for another way out of the cave. She finds a second opening in the cave system and climbs through it, emerging near the beach, with trees and sand surrounding the area. Unlike the previous opening that led out toward the ocean, this exit allows Sara to reach land and finally escape the Devil’s Mouth alive.

Reflecting on Sara’s transformation, Newton says portraying her growth required embracing the character’s initial insecurity and her reliance on Max as a source of confidence. “I didn’t like that Sara was such a baby and had to lean into it to discover her strength,” she says. She also highlights the importance of Sara and Max’s complicated friendship, explaining that Wadlow was drawn to “how they have to really turn against each other to find each other.”

By the end of the film, Sara becomes the one making the decisions and taking control of her own survival. “Once I became the apex predator that a teenage girl is, I couldn’t be stopped,” Newton adds.

Coinbase stock traded near $164 on Wednesday as investors weighed weak Q2 revenue expectations against Rosenblatt’s $240 price target and growth in newer business lines.

Coinbase stock consolidates ahead of earnings

Coinbase (COIN) shares traded at $164.43 on July 29, down 2.07% during the session after moving between $163.04 and $169.69. The stock has stabilized since falling below $140 in late June, but buyers have yet to establish a clear upward trend.

The company will publish its second-quarter results after the market closes on July 30. Coinbase has also scheduled a question-and-answer session for 2 p.m. Pacific Time that day, according to its investor relations announcement.

Wall Street expects revenue to reach approximately $1.31 billion for the April-to-June period. That would represent a 12.8% decline from the $1.50 billion reported in the second quarter of 2025. It would also fall below the $1.41 billion generated during Q1 2026.

Lower crypto trading activity remains the main earnings risk. Coinbase depends partly on transaction fees, leaving its quarterly results exposed to changes in digital asset prices, volatility and retail participation.

Rosenblatt sees Coinbase reaching $240

Rosenblatt maintained its Buy rating and $240 price target before the report. That target implies roughly 46% upside from the stock’s current price.

The investment firm expects Coinbase’s core crypto trading business to remain under pressure but sees derivatives and prediction markets becoming more meaningful revenue sources. Its target is based on 25 times the firm’s estimate for Coinbase’s adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization in 2027.

That view reflects Coinbase’s attempt to reduce its reliance on spot trading fees. Investors will therefore look beyond total revenue and examine whether newer products can offset weakness in the company’s core exchange business.

JPMorgan has taken a more cautious position. The bank recently cut its Coinbase price target from $283 to $196 after lowering earnings estimates linked to the company’s USDC revenue-sharing arrangement with Hyperliquid.

Under that structure, Coinbase can classify USDC held on Hyperliquid as on-platform balances but returns 90% of the related reserve income to the decentralized exchange. JPMorgan argued that the agreement could weaken the economics of Coinbase’s stablecoin business, according to a previous crypto.news report.

COIN price lacks a clear trend

The daily chart shows COIN trading between two short-term moving averages. Price at $164.43 sits below the 20-day simple moving average at $165.90 but remains above the 50-day SMA at $162.97.

That positioning points to consolidation rather than a confirmed breakout. A close above $165.90 would be an initial sign of improving short-term momentum, while the $169–$170 area forms the next resistance zone.

A stronger move could bring the 100-day SMA at $178.81 into focus. That level has been falling and remains the main medium-term barrier. Reclaiming it would place COIN on firmer technical ground, although the stock would still trade well below its 200-day SMA at $214.47.

The average directional index stands at 10.22. ADX readings below 20 generally indicate that neither buyers nor sellers control a strong trend. The low reading also suggests earnings could provide the catalyst needed for COIN to move out of its recent range.

Key Coinbase stock levels to watch

Immediate support sits at the 50-day SMA of $162.97. A daily close below that line could expose the $155 region, where buyers returned several times during July.

Further selling would place the $145–$150 zone at risk. That area includes the late-June reversal range, while the June low near $139 remains the larger downside level.

On the bullish side, COIN must first break through $166 and then clear $170. A move above both levels could support a test of $178.81. Earnings above expectations or evidence of stronger derivatives, stablecoin and prediction-market revenue could help drive that scenario.

Rosenblatt’s $240 target remains more ambitious. COIN would need to recover the 100-day and 200-day averages before that level becomes technically viable.

CLARITY Act remains a post-earnings risk

US regulatory developments could influence Coinbase shares after the earnings-driven volatility fades. The CLARITY Act is intended to define the respective roles of the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission in overseeing digital assets.

Lower expectations for the bill’s passage could limit the regulatory upside previously priced into US crypto stocks. A delay would preserve uncertainty for exchanges, token issuers and institutional investors considering broader participation in the market.

Coinbase could benefit if lawmakers establish clearer rules and bring more activity onshore. However, its immediate direction will depend on Q2 revenue, trading volumes, stablecoin income and management’s outlook for the rest of 2026.

White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt criticized banking leaders seeking tighter stablecoin reward restrictions as Senate delays pushed the CLARITY Act’s passage odds to a record low.

Patrick Witt challenges banks over CLARITY Act

Witt pushed back after 134 banking executives and industry leaders sent Senate lawmakers a letter seeking changes to Section 10404 of the CLARITY Act.

The section restricts issuers from paying interest or yield on payment stablecoins. Banking groups want lawmakers to extend the restriction to rewards, bonuses and other incentives offered by stablecoin firms or their partners.

Witt framed the request as inconsistent with the industry’s wider opposition to the market structure bill.

“Banks: We must ban the payment of interest on stablecoins to protect community bank lending!.”

He then noted that the CLARITY Act already bans interest payments before criticizing banks that still warn the bill could damage community lending.

His comments targeted the difference between banks’ support for an interest ban and their objections to other parts of the legislation. Bank representatives maintain that the existing language may leave room for stablecoin platforms to offer benefits with the same economic effect as interest.

Why banks want a wider stablecoin reward ban

Signatories included leaders tied to Bank of America, U.S. Bank, Zions Bank, First Hawaiian Bank, Bank of Hawaii, Hancock Whitney Bank, FNBO, Eastern Bank, Lake City Bank and Univest Financial Corporation.

The group said payment stablecoins should function as transaction tools rather than long-term savings products. It warned that rewards linked to a user’s balance or holding period could encourage customers to move money out of insured bank accounts.

Banking leaders claimed that large deposit outflows could reduce the funding available for lending to households, farmers, small businesses and local employers. They estimated that the effect could drain hundreds of billions of dollars from the traditional banking system.

Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon has taken a different position by supporting the CLARITY Act. His stance separates the investment bank from groups demanding tighter stablecoin provisions before the Senate moves forward.

The debate has direct implications for US stablecoin users. Broader restrictions could limit the rewards that exchanges and other service providers offer, even when stablecoin issuers do not pay interest directly.

CLARITY Act odds fall to a record-low 27%

The banking dispute comes as the CLARITY Act faces a shrinking Senate calendar. Polymarket traders have reduced the probability that the legislation becomes law in 2026 to 27%, its lowest recorded level.

Galaxy Digital has separately lowered its passage estimate to 30% as negotiations extend deeper into the legislative year.

Senate Republicans recently released an updated 616-page draft combining texts from the Senate Banking and Agriculture committees. The framework would place digital commodity spot markets under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission while allowing the Securities and Exchange Commission to oversee investment contract assets.

It also includes protections for certain software developers, blockchain developers and decentralized networks that do not control customer assets. White House-backed ethics provisions would restrict digital asset issuance involving federal officials and their spouses.

Senate delay leaves little time before recess

Senate Majority Leader John Thune postponed CLARITY Act action while lawmakers considered federal nominees and the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia Act of 2026. Senators voted on July 28 to advance the sanctions package, leaving fewer working days before the Aug. 8 recess.

Crypto industry participants have urged Thune to begin the cloture process before lawmakers leave Washington, even if a final vote cannot occur. A procedural vote would test whether the bill has enough bipartisan support to overcome Senate hurdles later in 2026.

Failure to begin that process would push the legislation further into an already crowded calendar. Stablecoin reward rules remain one of the issues lawmakers must resolve before the broader US crypto market structure framework can advance.

The Federal Reserve left its benchmark fed funds rate range unchanged at 3.50%-3.75% on Wednesday, extending its pause for a sixth consecutive meeting as policymakers continue to grapple with stubborn inflation.

“Inflation remains elevated relative to the Committee’s 2 percent goal, in part reflecting supply shocks that have driven price increases in certain sectors, including energy,” the policy statement read.

“Economic activity is expanding at a solid pace despite elevated uncertainty that owes, in part, to the conflict in the Middle East. Productivity growth and capital investment are strong,” the statement added. “Job gains have kept pace with the workforce, and the unemployment rate has changed little.”

There were three committee members dissenting, preferring to raise rates by 25 basis points. Nine voted to keep policy in place.

Bitcoin climbed to above $64,400 following the decision, up over 1% over the past 24 hours. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq bounced, trimming earlier declines. Gold also rose, up 1.2% through the day.

The decision came after one of the most uncertain pre-meeting setups in years. Futures markets had assigned roughly a 65% probability to a hold and 35% odds of a quarter-point increase, according to CME FedWatch data.