FundedHivefounder and chief executive Thomas Heinfart called the prop trading industry'sconsistency rule FundedHive CEO Calls Consistency Rule “a Payout Trap” inPointed Industry Critiquea and said only a single-digit percentage of histraders stay funded long term, in remarks published this week by ResponsibleTrading.com.Singapore Summit: Meet the largestAPAC brokers you know (and those you still don't!)"Theone rule we would remove from the industry is the consistency rule, because inmost cases it is not a real risk-management tool. It is a payout trap,"Heinfart said. The rule,applied in different versions across the sector, typically caps the share oftotal profit that can come from a single trading day, requiring traders to keeptrading until results look more evenly distributed before they can withdraw.Heinfartsaid FundedHive operates "zero consistency rules on any of ourchallenges," alongside no IP restrictions, and that the firm permits goldtrading and news trading. He framedthe issue as a question of business model rather than trader leniency."The biggest mistake many failed firms made was that they were not builtas risk-management businesses. They were built as marketing machines," he added.Industry Pushback AgainstConsistency Rules Is Not NewMyFundedFX introduced a 50% consistencyguideline in July 2024 and reversed it two weeks later after sustained clientpushback. A PipFarm survey of around 500 active proptraders,exclusively shared with FinanceMagnates.com the following month, found 53% ofrespondents listed consistency rules among the features they most wanted toavoid in a prop firm offering, second only to trailing drawdown.Consistency-stylemechanics still appear in different forms across the sector's largest firms. FundedNext,FundingPips, and Hola Prime all build their funded-stage rules around minimumtrading days and structures that reward steady performance, with FundedNextrequiring a minimum of two trading days on its Stellar 1-Step program andFundingPips applying a three-day minimum on its 1-step path.Heinfartdrew a distinction between rules in general and how rules are used. "Thehonest answer is that prop firm challenges are supposed to be difficult,because real capital exposure cannot be given to traders without proof of riskcontrol," he said. "Theproblem is not that rules exist. The problem is when rules are hidden, vague,changed retroactively, or used manually to avoid paying traders."Trust Concerns Sit at theHeart of the SectorThe sectorhas spent the past 18 months absorbing trust-related shocks. The Funded Trader suspended payouts in March 2024 citing an internal audit and wasstill working through the backlog more than a year later. FundingTicksfaced trader backlash in December 2025 over what clients calledretroactive changes to profit splits and trade-holding rules. Hola Primemore recently hired Deloitte to audit five months ofwithdrawals, with the Big Four firm reporting that 98.35% of payouts clearedwithin an hour and none were rejected.Heinfartsaid FundedHive has not changed rules retroactively on existing fundedaccounts. "Thisis one of the most important trust principles in our company," he said. Healso told ResponsibleTrading.com that the firm's payouts execute through smartcontracts and that manual denial is not possible once eligibility is confirmed,with withdrawals typically processed in under 60 seconds, according to thecompany. Thoseclaims have not been independently audited.Pass Rates Stay Low Acrossthe IndustryAsked aboutFPFX Technology data showing only7% of challenge buyers ever receive a payout, Heinfart said "the 7%figure does not surprise us" and called it a realistic number fortraditional two-step models. He saidFundedHive's faster one-step and instant-funding products produce withdrawalratios in the 20% to 30% range, though those figures are self-reported.Asked whatshare of his traders he believed had what it takes to stay funded long-term,defined as remaining eligible across multiple payout cycles, Heinfart was morecandid. "Honestlyit is a single-digit percentage. Probably under 10%," he said. The FundedTrader's own client statistics, shared earlier this year,suggested only 1% to 2% of its clients ultimately make money on the platform.Heinfart'sadvice for traders trying to maximize the chances of getting paid played to thesame theme. "Stoptrying to 'beat the challenge' and trade as if you are already managing realA-book exposure, because the traders who get paid are usually not the onestaking the biggest shots, they are the ones who stay eligible, controlled, andconsistent," he said.RegulationOnregulation, Heinfart said the industry could not assume it would stay outsidethe perimeter forever. "We donot believe serious prop trading should be treated as gambling. But we also donot believe the whole industry can hide behind the word 'evaluation' andpretend regulation never applies," he said. The remarkscome as ESMA, the FCA, and the CFTC continue to study how prop trading firmsshould be classified, with the CFTC's case against My Forex Funds dismissed in May 2025.Asked whichcompetitor he respects most, Heinfart named FTMO, the Czech firm that acquired OANDA in 2025. He said thecompany "proved something important: a prop firm can become a seriousglobal company when it builds brand trust, technology, operational discipline,and long-term infrastructure instead of only selling hype."This article was written by Damian Chmiel at www.financemagnates.com.