I simulated 100,000 unrelated trading outcomes over 100 trades to show you the effects of the End-Of-Day adjustment.

I have provided evidence below that this is human-written.

This model assumes that the average trader is using a breakeven strategy with an average RRR of 1:2. Each trade has a 66.66% chance of losing $200 and a 33.33% chance of making $400.
The strategy executes 3 trades per day on average.
The trailing drawdown line starts at $48,000 for this prop firm, and it is only reviewed every 3 trades (1 average trading day), moving up to equity minus $2,000 if that value is higher than the current line. Once a path touches or falls below its trailing drawdown line, it is treated as failed and flatlines from that point onwards. The maximum drawdown cap is $50,000.

Figure 1

Figure 1 shows this logic visually over 50 trades. I plotted the 90th percentile, the 10th percentile, and a representative median outcome. The dashed lines show each path’s end-of-day drawdown, adjusted every three trades, while the red line shows the mean of those drawdown paths.

Using the same logic on all 100,000 simulated paths:

Here are the key values:
Mean final trailing DD level: $49,123.35 (AllMeanFinalTrailingValue/100,000)
Final trailing DD level: 50th percentile: $49,200 (Median Value)

This suggests that, on average, the prop firm’s risk with this profile is reduced significantly when natural variability is considered.
After the first payout, this prop firm reduces their risk even further by requiring traders to keep a buffer containing the profits they have earned to use as risk to continue trading.

Parameters and Limitations

No simulation is perfect, so it is important to state that we do not have access to their exact metrics. We must rely on reasonable but generous assumptions. I believe the average prop firm trader’s strategy is below breakeven before costs, but I do not have the statistics to prove it, so any value other than breakeven would be subjective without evidence. I used 1:2 because many traders use asymmetric ratios above 1:1, so the average could be higher, for example, 1:2.615, but I do not have the statistics to confirm it.

Key Parameters
The trailing drawdown threshold starts at $48,000
it is reviewed every 3 trades
it updates to max(previous DD line, equity at checkpoint -$2,000)
The maximum drawdown cap is $50,000.

Under these generous assumptions, the model produces an initial pass rate of 24.69%

Our Assumptions

1. What qualifies as a pass is $53,000 being hit before the trailing drawdown is hit, given the strategy’s risk. This is achieved in 50 trades on average for successful outcomes under these parameters (49.92 average trades: mean wins, 21.75; mean losses, 28.17).
2. We will assume that each trader withdraws as much as they can, and that 50% of the profits are withdrawn on each payout request at $53,000 repeatedly. Of those in the winning group (24,690 traders), 24.69% of them (6,096) will get paid out on the next cycle. This is around 6% of the original applicants (100,000 traders).
3. Over time, many of these 6,096 traders would still be expected to drift towards failure through edge decay, human error, or the absence of a genuine edge.
4. 24,690 out of 100,000 traders pass. The firm earns $98 per failure on this cycle (2x $49 monthly payments), estimated at $7,380,380. The other traders pay an additional $149 activation fee, which adds another $3,678,810. Under these assumptions, the firm would generate $11,059,190 in gross fee revenue for the cycle.
5. Each positive-outcome trader gives the prop firm 10% of the $1,500 withdrawn as part of the profit split. $150 x 6,096 traders brings another $914,400 in revenue, and now those traders will not realistically lose the prop firm’s principal. The traders earn $8,229,600 from live markets before income taxes.

The mean final trailing DD level in the simulation is $49,123.35, meaning the firm in this scenario loses an average of $876.65. (50000–49123.35)

$876.65 x 6,096 traders = $5,344,058 in losses.

In this scenario, the prop firm makes over $11 million USD from evaluation fees per cycle and another million from profit-split revenue, while losing $5.34 million from live exposure to trading losses. Evaluation fees: 11.059 million USD; payouts: 914 thousand USD. The main point is where the revenue comes from: most of it is generated by failure.

https://preview.redd.it/a5wtjzwq5lug1.png?width=1536&format=png&auto=webp&s=ad82ba7fa4cf4ca284e110678d106cf3bfcbd5a8

Comparing this scenario to a live environment.

Those who received a payout could have deposited $300 instead and risked 10% per trade with withdrawal plans, rather than using a prop firm, and would have gotten comparable results: 300 * 1.20^(21.752) * 0.90^(28.172) = $2205.608 ending balance. After a $1,350 withdrawal in this scenario, the trader can continue and begin to get similar payoffs as long as they can sustain the rate of success or have a genuine edge to sustain it (many traders will need one to get this far).

If a trader peaks at $1,000 in realised gains over 13 evaluation trades [EOD], with 6 profitable positions and 7 losses, and then later hits the maximum drawdown cap. In that case, the minimum loss is $49. If the trader experiences the same in this live environment, the trader loses $14.40 (300 * 1.2^(6) * 0.9^(7) * 0.6666) = $285.60.

After reaching $53,000, the trader can continue, but their ability to absorb losses only rises by 50%, from $2,000 to $3,000. The live account gets an 80.74%+ increase after the first withdrawal ($570.34 to $1,030.88), while maximum daily loss constraints can grow beyond $1,000, unlike the prop firm's, which is static.

What about margins requirements?

Unless you are a scalper, the additional leverage is not required. Scalping has high costs due to churn. It is not compatible for most traders. Human error or latency can have lasting negative effects on performance.

You are not supposed to max out your leverage if you are trading seriously.

100 ounces of gold futures (GC), or 1 lot, can be bought with $2,000 in intraday margin requirements or less. This is available on multiple futures brokers. The position value is beyond $450,000 USD, and you would be trading micros, which require even less margin (some brokers, such as Optimus Futures, require less than $100 per contract).

The percentage risk may look extreme, but the point of the comparison is to test the economic value of the offer under the same dollar-risk constraint, with the same capital at risk, so you can decide which option is most appropriate for you.

Important note:

Even under a generous breakeven-style simulation, the firm’s business model is still heavily supported by failed attempts, while the trader’s upside may be less compelling than it first appears once fees, splits, taxes, and rule-based friction are accounted for. 

I am aware of contract size minimums and how they can add friction, but people outside the USA can take more precise, smaller positions with other products, such as CFDs through a reputable, regulated broker. That was the path we took.

Disclaimer:
Sentient Trading Society is not affiliated with any prop firm and does not promote, endorse, or condone their use. Any references are for educational and analytical purposes only.

AI Check

Thanks for reading  - The Sentient Trading Society

Hey everyone, submitted a payout request on Apr 10 for $1,468 via Wise and its been sitting at Compliance Approved since 2:07 PM that day. Already cleared submitted, funds removed, funding approved, and risk approved all within minutes.

I was looking through Topsteps professional behavior policy and noticed it lists constantly asking for resets, freebies, or special exceptions as prohibited conduct, and that code of conduct violations can slow down or decline your payout.

https://preview.redd.it/imvo6naxxnug1.png?width=2772&format=png&auto=webp&s=d5a76cb5f4a99c1dbfa428fcbf5038778b8c9bf6

I'll be honest, in the past I have called in and asked for free resets. Most of it was back in late 2025 and I havent done anything like that in 2026 at all. But looking at my reset bank I have around 20 resets redeemed, a good chunk of which are marked complimentary with no subscription ID attached.

Also worth mentioning the request was submitted on a Friday so it could just be a weekend delay thing and compliance doesnt process over the weekend. Maybe im overthinking it and it just hasnt been reviewed yet.

Super worried right now that this is why compliance hasnt cleared yet. Has anyone been in a similar situation and still gotten paid? Did Topstep ever reach out before denying or do they just reject it? Any insight would be huge, really stressing over this one.

This is going to sound like a brag but I just have an impending doom feeling in my head about this.

So I started day trading around thanksgiving last year and I ended up passing my combine early this year and I’ve been getting payouts scaling up using other prop firms and such. But the problem and what’s bothering me is I was told an warned that there’s a big hump where you blow a funded or lose a bunch of money. Difficulty staying consistent and such.

So ig my question is does it come later after you get comfortable or am I an outlier in the process?

Yes I have been saving and stuff trying to brace myself for the eventual crash I was told about

I’ve been close to passing evals multiple times, and there have been days I’m up $500–$900, but I keep trading. It’s like a switch flips dopamine kicks in and my brain says, “Keep going, get more.”

I’m not posting this for sympathy. I know someone else out there is dealing with the exact same thing or has been where I’m at. So from now on I’m locking out once I’m in profit even it’s just $200, also setting a DLL to prevent me from over trading/ revenge trading.

DISCIPLINE>> DOPAMINE

See you all Monday (:

It’s funny when likes of Daniel Holmes gets his wee fuck boy to call you about his course.

Hard questions about how much money you have before he offers you a mentorship 😂

So the richer you are you get spanked?😂

Scams 😂😂😂