Most prop firms spend heavily on marketing that says "funded trader," "capital" and "professional." On July 22, 2026, Forbes published a piece in which two operators, speaking on the On The Margin podcast, described it very differently.
What they said
Chris Hunter, CEO of Maven Trading, as quoted by Forbes: "A prop firm does not have regulations. There's no such thing. Because of the nature of the game, it's essentially a game. It's a trading-based game, skill-based game. There's no real money being played with." Forbes reports Hunter said the six-figure balance a passing trader gets "is not actually real money 99% of the time."
James Sixsmith, who runs Take Profit Trader (TPT), described TPT's simulated "pro account" in B-book terms: "a B book is basically a simulated, you know, you're putting trades on, you think that they're live, but they're not actually going to the exchange." Sixsmith says TPT has "like a hundred thousand active traders." Forbes notes he argues his firm is unusual in pushing more traders through to real live accounts.
The strangest detail is the headline quote. Sixsmith says some successful traders refuse to move to live capital: "People are like, No, I want to stay in simulation." His explanation: "Those guys that are saying that, they can't hack it in the live market... Because again, you're competing against HFTs."
Why futures and forex prop traders should care
If the operators themselves call it a game, the obvious question is: what exactly are you buying? Forbes' answer: a fee to enter a skill contest, run in simulation, with payouts funded by the firm. Sixsmith is blunt about the odds: "Most traders end up failing because they run out of money before they turn the corner." Forbes adds that a prop firm, at best, "changes the size of the loss, not the direction."
There is also a practical point for scalpers. If a strategy only works on simulated fills, it may be exploiting the simulator, not the market. Sixsmith says the traders who last "trade a fraction of what they're allowed to trade."
Trading or gambling?
This is where the debate gets heated. Regulators have used similar language, as a warning. Italy's Consob said in 2024 that prop sites promote exercises that "simulate online trading in a type of finance video game," according to Finance Magnates. Belgium's FSMA warned such programs can amount to a "shadow investment game," per FinanceFeeds. Finance Magnates also reported that some stakeholders in ESMA's early deliberations argued gaming frameworks were the natural place for the sector.
The operators' defense: Hunter's framing is skill-based game. Evaluations filter for discipline. Traders risk a known fee instead of leveraged personal capital, and a denied payout for breaking exchange rules is not a scam. Sixsmith points to CME rules on manipulative order patterns: "That's not a TPT rule. That's a CME rule."
The critics' view: Forbes quotes trader @TraderSumo1 on X in April: "The industry is massively misaligned against their trader customers... This is ponzi territory. At best, they operate with an insurance company model." Another trader, @BindawaOfficial, countered in May: "A denied payout isn't automatically proof of a scam."
Our take
Our take: Credit to Hunter and Sixsmith for saying on record what most firm websites hide in the fine print. But "it's a game" can't be a shield when it suits the firm ("no regulations, no real money") and dropped when it doesn't ("funded trader," "firm capital"). If it's a game, market it as one, with published odds. If it's trading, act like a financial firm. The uncomfortable question: if the successful traders would rather stay in the simulator than touch real money, what is the product actually selling?
What traders can do
- Assume a "funded account" is simulated unless the firm clearly says otherwise in writing.
- Test whether your edge survives real fills and slippage before building a plan around sim results.
- Budget challenge fees as entertainment or tuition money you can lose, not as an investment.
Key takeaways
- Forbes (July 22, 2026) quoted Maven's CEO calling prop trading "essentially a game" with "no real money being played with."
- TPT's CEO said some winning traders prefer to stay in simulation rather than face HFTs in live markets.
- Regulators in Italy and Belgium have used "video game" and "shadow investment game" language as warnings.
- "Ponzi" claims about rivals are one operator's opinion, not proven findings.
- Treat challenge fees as money at risk and assume funded accounts are simulated.
Put the research to work on your Desk
Explore the tools behind the research, compare the available access, or open your Desk if you already have an account.
FAQ
Are prop firm funded accounts real money?
Often not. Maven's CEO told a podcast, as quoted by Forbes, that the funded balance 'is not actually real money 99% of the time.' Many firms run funded accounts in simulation and pay traders from their own funds.
Is a prop challenge gambling?
It is debated. Operators call it a skill-based contest. Italy's Consob and Belgium's FSMA have warned it resembles a 'finance video game' or 'shadow investment game.' No regulator cited here has formally classified it as gambling.
Why would traders prefer to stay in simulation?
According to Take Profit Trader's CEO, some strategies that profit in simulation stop working live against high-frequency traders, so those traders avoid live capital.
Loomi.Ai provides educational market research, not financial advice. Trading futures and options involves substantial risk of loss, and backtested results are historical and do not guarantee future returns.