FundingTicks Review · 2026

What is FundingTicks?

FundingTicks is a Dubai-based futures proprietary trading firm founded in July 2025 by CEO Khaled Ayesh, who also leads the affiliated brand FundingPips. The operator sold two evaluation programs: a 2-Step Pro+ challenge priced from $99 to $199 per month, and an Instant-funded Zero plan priced from $333 to $599 as a one-time fee. The account ladder ran across $25K, $50K, and $100K simulated balances, with order execution routed to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) futures venue. The corporate structure followed a common Middle East prop-firm pattern: a Dubai-facing brand sitting alongside a Cyprus-side service entity tied to the CEO's wider portfolio. Slot 1 is intentionally short because operations ceased on January 18, 2026 (see next section).

What happened to FundingTicks?

The operating record ended in two stages. On December 17, 2025, the firm imposed a retroactive rule package that raised the minimum daily profit from $150 to $200, raised required profitable days from 5 to 6, introduced a one-minute trade-hold floor, cut the base profit split (the share of profits the trader keeps) from 90 percent to 80 percent, and capped withdrawals per cycle. The changes applied to traders who had already passed evaluations under the older terms, and previously earned profits were voided in multiple cases (source: Finance Magnates, December 2025). On January 18, 2026, the firm published a wind-down notice on its official site, citing a strategic decision to redirect resources. The CEO publicly committed to refunding active accounts: a 100 percent challenge-fee refund for open evaluations, 80 percent of profits to master accounts that met the post-December conditions, and 20 percent to those that did not. The sponsor broker, the licensed venue that would execute funded-account orders, was never named publicly during operations or in the wind-down notice.

Red flags and warning signs

Four findings stand out from the operating record. First, the December 17, 2025 rule package was applied retroactively rather than to new evaluations only, the canonical pattern for voiding payouts after evaluation pass (source: Finance Magnates, December 2025). Second, the sponsor broker was never named, leaving the execution chain undocumented. Third, the user-aggregate rating fell from 4.1/5 to 3.2/5 across more than 1,800 reviews between October 2025 and January 2026 (scan date 2026-05-26), driven by retroactive-change complaints. Fourth, the firm operated for under seven months before wind-down, well below the five-year maturity threshold used in standard prop-firm assessment frames.

Regulatory record

Proprietary trading firms are not licensed broker-dealers, so absence from regulator registers is the baseline expectation, not a red flag. As of the scan date (2026-05-26), no CFTC (US Commodity Futures Trading Commission) RED List entry, no NFA (US National Futures Association) action, no FCA (UK Financial Conduct Authority) warning, and no ASIC (Australian Securities and Investments Commission) banned-list entry was published against the firm or its publicly named CEO. The January wind-down was an operator-initiated decision, not a regulator-forced closure, and no IOSCO investor alert was issued.

What traders reported about payouts

Two distinct phases sit in the trader-reported record. Through November 2025, complaints centered on minor evaluation friction, payouts were processed on the advertised 5-day or 7-day cycle, and the user-aggregate rating sat at 4.1/5. After the December 17 rule change, complaint volume rose sharply: traders reported that previously approved master accounts were retroactively flagged for the new one-minute hold and the new daily-profit floor, with earned profit balances reset (source: Finance Magnates coverage of trader social-media reports, December 2025). The CEO claimed total paid-out figures above 220 million USD in a public statement, which the operator did not corroborate with an audit-trail payouts page.

Withdrawal and payout problems

Payout problems clustered in the four weeks between December 17, 2025 and the January 18, 2026 wind-down. Master-account holders reported that withdrawal requests submitted under the prior 90-percent split were either reduced to the new 80-percent split, capped under the new per-cycle ceiling, or held pending account review against the new one-minute trade-hold rule. No public per-trader payouts-proof page was published during this period, so individual recoveries could not be cross-checked. The wind-down notice committed to settling outstanding balances under the post-December rule set, not under the rules that applied when the trades were originally placed.

Rule changes and retroactive enforcement

Five specific rule edits landed on December 17, 2025. Minimum daily profit moved from $150 to $200. Required profitable days moved from 5 to 6. A one-minute trade-hold floor was introduced, a structural block against scalping strategies. The base profit split was cut from 90 percent to 80 percent. Withdrawals were capped per cycle. The fairness issue is not the rule levels in isolation, it is the retroactive application: traders who had structured strategies and passed evaluations under the older terms found earned profits voided under terms they had not agreed to (source: Finance Magnates, December 2025).

Trading platforms while operational

Three trading platforms appeared on the firm's pricing page during operations: NinjaTrader, Tradovate, and TradingView. All three are futures-native interfaces, none are MetaTrader-family, which means the February 2024 MetaQuotes mass purge of MT4/MT5 prop-firm licenses had no impact on platform availability here. Order execution routed to CME futures contracts, the same venue used by other US-facing futures prop firms. No EA (Expert Advisor, an automated trading script) restriction beyond standard platform-side controls was published; copy-trading across accounts was blocked under the operator's account-correlation rules.

Challenge fees while active

Two pricing models ran in parallel. The Pro+ 2-Step Evaluation charged a monthly fee from $99 on the $25K account to roughly $199 on the $100K account, refundable on first successful payout. The Zero Instant program charged a one-time fee from $333 to $599 across the same account ladder, non-refundable but bypassing the evaluation stage. Pro+ profit targets ran from $1,500 to $6,000 by account size; the Zero program scaled profit thresholds to the size of the instant-funded simulated account.

Sponsor broker disclosure

The sponsor broker is undisclosed. The pricing and rules pages referenced CME futures execution and called the routing partner the firm's "clearing venue," without naming a licensed FCM (Futures Commission Merchant) or registered Introducing Broker. The wind-down notice on the official site did not name the sponsor either. For sector reference, FTMO discloses its in-house routing entity, FundedNext historically named GBE Brokers (BaFin licensed) as its sponsor, and Topstep names Topstep Trader (CFTC/NFA registered) as its in-house CME-routed FCM. The execution venue question, sponsor undisclosed, is the largest single audit gap in the operating record.

How to verify a prop firm's claims

Four checks apply to any prop firm before a challenge fee is paid. First, search the relevant regulator's public register and warning list (CFTC RED List for US, FCA Warning List for UK, ASIC Banned and Disqualified Persons register for Australia) under both the brand and the parent entity. Second, look up any named sponsor broker on that broker's own regulator register, confirm the license is active, and confirm the firm appears on the sponsor's published partner list. Third, check the MetaQuotes sanction page for current MT4/MT5 license status, several major firms lost both in the February 2024 mass purge. Fourth, save snapshots of the rules and pricing pages on the scan date as protection against retroactive change.

Recovery options for paid challenge fees

Three procedural routes apply to traders who paid a challenge fee and have not been made whole. Card chargeback under "services not rendered" is time-bound: most issuers accept the dispute within 60 to 90 days of the original transaction, with some running 120 days, so traders who paid in November or December 2025 sit inside the standard window for a January 2026 wind-down. Class-action registration runs through US federal docket services like CourtListener and PACER, though no filing was indexed against the brand or its CEO as of the scan date (2026-05-26). A complaint to the UAE Securities and Commodities Authority, the regulator with primary territorial reach over the Dubai HQ, is a third route. This information is procedural, not advice on which path to choose.

Should you avoid FundingTicks?

The firm no longer sells evaluations, so the active question is narrower: is there an open balance or a recent challenge purchase to resolve? Five findings frame the answer. First, the wind-down was operator-initiated, not regulator-forced, and the CEO publicly committed to refunds. Second, the December 17, 2025 retroactive rule package voided previously earned profits in documented cases (source: Finance Magnates, December 2025). Third, the sponsor broker was never disclosed, leaving the execution chain unauditable. Fourth, account settlements are running under the post-December rule set, not the rules that applied when trades were originally placed. Fifth, the standard recovery routes (card chargeback inside 60 to 90 days, regulator complaints, class-action monitoring) remain open as of the scan date.

Prop firm challenges carry a non-refundable fee in most programs; passing the evaluation is not guaranteed and the funded stage is a simulated account whose payouts depend on the firm's continued solvency and policy. This content is for information only, not investment advice. Verify the firm's current rules, sponsor broker disclosure, and any open regulator actions on its official site and on the relevant authority's official register before paying any challenge fee.