Orbit Funded Avis 115

Réponse : Orbit Funded

Il y a 10 heures

Hello Gary,

First of all, it is important to clarify that, according to our records, you are not and have never been a client of Orbit Funded. Therefore, this review does not reflect any real experience with our company, platform, or payout process.

The financial markets are dynamic, and there are many firms available. Each trader can — and should — choose the one that best fits their profile and strategy. That said, it is difficult to understand what motivates someone to spend time criticizing a company they have never actually used.

Regarding the rules mentioned, they exist by design. Our objective is not to serve every type of trader, but to work with those who demonstrate consistency, discipline, and proper risk management. Based on your own statements, it is clear that your profile does not align with the type of trader we are looking for.

Additionally, some points were misunderstood, even after being explained to you through our support.

The Positive Trading Days rule (70% or 50%, depending on the option chosen) is specifically designed to filter for consistent traders, not those who trade impulsively or rely on a single “lucky” day. Traders who operate this way tend to lose capital over time — and that is not the type of profile we want in our ecosystem.

The 1:1 risk-to-reward rule is simple, objective, and widely used in the industry. It ensures that traders maintain a healthy balance between risk and potential return. We consider this parameter flexible and aligned with sound risk management practices.

Regarding stop loss adjustments, the limitation exists precisely to prevent improper behavior, such as setting an excessively wide stop loss and then attempting to close the trade or move the stop to break-even after a small favorable move, without a coherent risk structure.

Furthermore, it is clear that you did not carefully read the rule to fully understand its practical application. For example, if a trader opens a position with a 50-pip stop loss and keeps the take profit open, once the trade moves 25 pips in profit, they can reduce the stop loss to 25 pips and close the trade. In this scenario, the risk was proportionally reduced, and the 1:1 risk-to-reward requirement was fully respected.

In other words, there is no restriction on actively managing a position — as long as it follows a consistent logic aligned with the rules.

Our rules exist to filter traders who are truly capable of generating consistent and sustainable results over the long term.

Sincerely,
Orbit Funded Team

Réponse : Orbit Funded

ll y a 3 jours

We take all public feedback seriously, however this review contains several inaccuracies that must be clarified.

First, a temporary technical issue did occur on April 13th, related to market data delivery, which caused premature trade closures. This issue was immediately identified, transparently communicated to all clients via a dashboard notice, and fully resolved by the early hours of April 15th.

As a fair and industry-standard resolution, all affected trades — both profits and losses — were neutralized, and account balances were restored to their state prior to the incident, since those results did not reflect real market conditions.

In your specific case, your account balance prior to the issue was approximately $100,302.71, and after the incident it had dropped below $99,000 due to the affected trades. These results were fully neutralized, and your balance was correctly restored to its original value.

The claim of “data manipulation” is incorrect. There was no alteration of legitimate trading results, but rather a correction of trades executed under abnormal conditions, which is a standard and necessary practice in situations like this.

Regarding the claim of “lost profits”, it is important to clarify that there is no valid basis for compensation based on hypothetical gains. Market movements do not guarantee outcomes, and it is not possible to determine whether such opportunities would have been successfully executed.

It is also important to highlight that, after the issue was fully resolved, the client made a disproportionate request, demanding a $1,000,000 account with special conditions (including 100% profit split, no consistency rule, and reduced profit days), despite holding a $100,000 account. This request has no contractual or operational basis.

Regarding the allegations about emails and infrastructure, it is important to clarify the sequence of events:

Initially, the client presented supposed evidence using the domain orbitassets.com, which has no relation to our company. After being informed of this, the client then switched to using our correct domain orbitfunded.com, but created email addresses that do not exist within our infrastructure, such as ceo@orbitfunded.com
, compliance@orbitfunded.com
, and info@orbitfunded.com
.

These are not official company channels and are not published in any of our environments. Therefore, these claims have no connection to our infrastructure.

Regarding the mention of a platform migration, this was communicated transparently as an operational improvement, aimed at enhancing the overall experience for our clients. This does not represent a “structural failure,” but rather a natural evolution of our service.

Finally, it is important to provide context regarding the tone adopted by the client throughout the communication. In one of the emails sent, an ultimatum was issued demanding benefits without contractual basis under threat of public exposure:

“FINAL 24-HOUR NOTICE – PREPARING PUBLIC EXPOSURE
[…] I am granting a final 24-hour window […]
[…] I will proceed […] to publish all evidence on Trustpilot, Prop Firm Match and Forex Peace Army […]
[…] the damage to your reputation will be irreversible.”

We emphasize that Orbit does not negotiate under threat and operates based on clear, objective, and previously communicated criteria.

We remain committed to transparency, fairness, and professionalism in all our operations.

Réponse : Orbit Funded

Actualisé il y a 4 jours

We take public feedback very seriously, however, in this case, it is essential to clarify the facts with full transparency.

The claim that our company is a “fraud” is completely unfounded and does not reflect reality.

Your payout request was submitted with only 2 trading days, while the minimum requirement is 14 trading days, as clearly stated on our website and in the agreement you read and accepted before starting to trade.

Our company operates with full transparency. All rules, without exception, are publicly available on our website, and before trading, every client must read and accept an agreement where these same rules are clearly outlined. There are no hidden rules.

By starting your account, you did so fully aware of all conditions. Therefore, it is not consistent to later claim that the rules are “absurd” or “not specified” when they were clearly available and formally accepted by you beforehand.

In addition, your account violated rules in an objective and repeated manner:

• More than 80 violations of the minimum trade duration rule (tick scalping)
• Practically all of your trades failed to meet the minimum risk-to-reward requirement (1:1)

These rules are in place to be followed and are applied equally to all traders, without exception.

It is also important to note that there was an attempt to condition the situation on posting negative reviews unless a new account was granted, which reflects an effort to shift responsibility away from your own rule violations.

We operate based on clear, objective, and previously communicated criteria.

We remain available for any further clarification.