A wave of complaints from traders about reversed account approvals and alleged lack of transparency has placed prop firm QT Funded under scrutiny, raising broader questions about oversight in the prop trading industry.
QT Funded, also known as Quant Tekel, is a South Africa-based proprietary trading firm that operates on a widely used industry model. The company offers traders the opportunity to manage its capital in exchange for a share of the profits. To qualify, traders must first pay a fee to participate in a simulated evaluation challenge, designed to test their ability to meet profit targets while adhering to strict risk management rules.
The firm has distinguished itself by advertising high profit splits of up to 90%, bi-weekly payouts and an association with a brokerage entity, Quant Tekel Pty Ltd, which it suggests is regulated. This positioning has contributed to its rapid growth and a strong reputation, reflected in a Trustpilot score of 4.6 based on nearly 9,000 reviews.
However, that reputation is now being questioned, following a series of public allegations from traders who claim their successfully verified accounts were abruptly terminated over alleged “KYC fraud,” leaving them without the funded accounts they had earned.
The Core of the Dispute: KYC Reversals and Account Deletions
The controversy centers on the firm’s Know Your Customer (KYC) verification process. QT Funded uses the automated verification service Veriff for initial checks, but emphasizes that it conducts its own subsequent internal compliance reviews. Several traders have taken to social media platform X to allege that these internal reviews are being applied inconsistently.
The situation gained significant traction when a trader, posting under the handle MVP, shared screenshots showing his account had been approved by Veriff, only to later be flagged for fraud by QT Funded’s internal team. He alleged that support provided only scripted responses before his account was deleted entirely, leading him to publicly label the firm a “scam.”
His case circulated widely, with others stepping forward to say they had experienced the same, citing a consistent pattern: Initial verification success followed by a reversal, a lack of detailed explanation from the company and concerns over whether payouts would be honoured.
The Firm’s Response: Allegations of “Malicious” Fraud Attempts
QT Funded initially responded on X, stating that MVP’s case was a “clear attempt at KYC fraud.” The company stated:
“[…] after looking into your case; we can confirm that your verification attempt was a clear attempt at KYC fraud. We take our internal compliance policies incredibly seriously — once a verification attempt has been submitted via veriff the team then run more checks to ensure total compliance with KYC policies.”
A representative for QT Funded told PropInsider that the “majority of noise online” originates from a minority of users who won free challenges through giveaways and subsequently attempted to “manipulate our verification process via malicious KYC attempts.” The firm asserted that any paying clients who are flagged are refunded as per company policy.
In response to the complaints, QT Funded further added that it has introduced Sumsub as an additional verification provider and is working with “large reputable companies within the ID Verification & prop firm space” to provide what it calls “complete transparency” on the issue. The company said formal statements on the matter would be forthcoming.
“The team at QT FUNDED take internal and external compliance policies very seriously. Up until recently we had changed our approach in regards to giveaways and to reward our audience; however the majority of noise online comes from the a minority of giveaway winners who have attempted to manipulate our verification process via malicious KYC attempts. Any paying clients who have been found committing malicious KYC attempts are always refunded, per our standard policy. To tackle this, we have introduced & now offer Sumsub as an alternative means of KYC verification. We will be making statements shortly as we have been working with several, large reputable companies within the ID Verification & prop firm space to help shed light and complete transparency around this issue,” QT Funded said.
The Question of Regulatory Protections
The dispute highlights a fundamental aspect of the prop trading industry: Its operational landscape. Unlike regulated brokers, which are subject to strict financial authority oversight, client fund protection schemes and formal dispute resolution processes, prop firms, like QT Funded, typically operate from offshore jurisdictions.
This structure allows for global accessibility, but leaves traders reliant almost entirely on the firm’s own terms and conditions and its internal policies for recourse. The recent allegations against QT Funded have intensified calls from the trading community for greater transparency and clearer safeguards.
The situation presents a familiar tension within the prop trading sector. Companies need to enforce strong anti-fraud protocols to guard against malicious actors who exploit stolen identities or use VPNs to bypass regulatory safeguards. However, the challenge lies in enforcing these measures without eroding trust among legitimate traders through processes that can appear opaque or arbitrary.
So far, QT Funded has not announced specific changes or improvements beyond the adoption of Sumsub as a new verification provider. The company insists that compliance remains central to its operations and has promised forthcoming statements in collaboration with ID verification experts.
Disclaimer: The content presented herein is for informational purposes only. While efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, no guarantees are made regarding its completeness, reliability or suitability for any particular purpose. Before making any financial decisions, we strongly advise seeking guidance from a qualified professional.