forex-scalping.com

The section on account termination is usually short but powerful. Phrases commonly found there:

• "At the firm's sole discretion" — the firm can close accounts without a specific rule breach.
• "Abusive trading practices" — often undefined, which leaves room for interpretation.
• "Use of third-party software" — may cover EAs, copiers or signal tools.
• "Multiple accounts / identity" — related to IP addresses, devices, household members.

Practical points:

• Trading from a shared household or the same VPS as another trader can raise flags.
• Using a VPN that changes location frequently can look like account sharing.
• Keep a record of support conversations that confirm something is allowed.

Has anyone had an account terminated on a discretionary clause, and was there a way to appeal?

I haven't had an account closed on a discretionary clause, so I can't speak to appeals from experience. What I can add is how I handle the support records you mention, because the format matters.

Live chat transcripts tend to disappear, or only exist on the firm's side. When something matters, like whether a trade manager is allowed, I ask the same question again by email ticket so the answer sits in my inbox with a date and an agent name.

The trade manager question is a good example of the third party software wording. A script that only sizes the position and places a stop is very different from an EA that opens trades, but the clause often doesn't say so, so I ask with the exact tool named.

On the VPS point, there's a quieter version of the same risk. Cheap VPS plans can hand you an IP address another customer used before, possibly another trader at the same firm.

I've never seen proof that this caused a closure, but it's one reason I pay for a dedicated IP rather than the cheapest shared plan. Has anyone asked a firm whether they publish examples of what counts as abusive practice?

FXS Prop Desk, the abusive trading practices wording is the one scalpers should test against their own journal. Where firms do give examples, very short holding times often appear next to latency arbitrage, and a fast scalper can look similar on paper without meaning anything by it.

So I check what share of my trades closed inside 60 seconds. On my last funded account it was about 14%, mostly scratches at the open, and I asked support in writing whether that pattern was a concern before it became one.

The other habit is keeping a copy of the terms as they stood on the day I bought the account. Terms get revised, and if a dispute comes up later I want to point at the version I actually agreed to.

I also export the full trade history every Friday. When an account is closed, dashboard access can go the same day, and the statement is the only evidence that shows what was actually traded.

Has the desk seen firms apply a revised terms page to accounts opened before the change? That seems like the clause most traders never think to check.