Fourteen years ago, in a trading club at the Prague University of Economics and Business, Otakar Šuffner and Marek Vašíček discovered a shared affinity for futures trading. When they founded FTMO in 2015, though, they had to be pragmatic. The retail prop trading industry was in its infancy, and the founders lacked both the capital and the business experience to navigate the complexities of futures. Instead, they built their business around CFDs, leveraging local industry connections, and became one of the better-known players in the industry. A month ago, they finally returned to their original passion. “So the time basically came this year. I like to say that Apple is also not releasing their products first. So it just took time,” Šuffner jokes.London's trading industry is coming home!Launching futures is merely the latest step in a wider campaign for the prop firm giant, which includes managing the operational realities behind the massive acquisition of legacy broker OANDA, navigating a fractured regulatory landscape and outmanoeuvring market volatility and predatory payout syndicates – all to build what they describe as a global “trading powerhouse.”Futures Are Hot NowAmong the most intriguing shifts currently unfolding in the space is that futures-based prop offerings are becoming a new darling for funded traders. There’s good reason: industry pricing data indicate that a $100,000 futures evaluation costs roughly $190 on average, compared with about $420 for a $100,000 CFD/FX one.Unsurprisingly, Šuffner notes that futures “were highly requested from our clients.”FTMO Futures is officially LIVE. 🏆The gold standard of prop trading, now powered for the exchange via Tradovate, NinjaTrader, and TradingView.No compromises. Just raw execution and total transparency. Explore FTMO Futures today 🙌🏻 https://t.co/g8HztyeUu4 https://t.co/WMDSy8DcRX— FTMO.com (@FTMO_com) August 31, 2026Futures had typically achieved these lower entry costs through a single-phase, subscription-style model. Yet FTMO has bucked this trend, opting instead for a traditional one-time fee structure, a move some competitors have also adopted. Šuffner doesn’t want to speak to why others have abandoned the subscription model, but says, “We are always focusing on ourselves; we asked our clients what product they want to trade and we ended up with our current offering.”Read more: Tradeify Co-Founders: “Difficult to Enter” Futures Prop; Subscription Ditch “Barely Moved Revenue”The firm is determined to treat futures as a core business rather than an offering on the side, which means confronting established US incumbents like Topstep. Launching the product required a dedicated team and significant capital investment, essentially creating a new business next to their CFDs. However, Vašíček subtly downplays the friction. “I don’t think that the entry barriers are that high as in the regulated business, right?” he observes. Still, while the global hub for futures trading is the US, the founders have been surprised by the international demand. “I was expecting that it would be US-heavy, but we have pretty much global customers, so at least for me it was very interesting,” Vašíček notes.“We Made Those Bankers Like FTMO”Like many in both the prop and broker space, FTMO is attempting to build a throughline, where a user can progress seamlessly from funded evaluations to a retail brokerage account, and eventually to a professional one. The founders reveal that they initially explored acquiring smaller, regionally regulated brokers in Europe and Australia, and then planned to build this brokerage arm organically, hiring industry veterans in late 2024, including ex-Skilling CEO Michael Kamerman. When the opportunity to acquire OANDA, which was globally established with licenses across most major hubs, from private equity firm CVC emerged, Vašíček admits his first reaction was to ask his co-founder, “‘Are you crazy?’ Then we realised that if we are serious about what we are doing, this is the one and only opportunity to have a global approach,” he explains. Negotiating with elite private-equity dealmakers was an intense education for the founders, testing their operational maturity. “It was kind of eye-opening,” Šuffner says. "We were scheduling the calls at 3:00 am.”FTMO secured a massive US$250 million syndicated credit line led by UniCredit, a significant milestone for a firm whose only previous corporate debt was a minor loan for mobile phones. “We made those bankers like FTMO and received the financing in record time for the Czech Republic,” Šuffner says.Convincing conservative Czech bankers to finance the buyout – together with cash reserves, OANDA was acquired for about US$422 million – was only half the battle. Securing global regulatory approval took nearly ten months. Financial watchdogs scrutinised the founders heavily. “They were very thorough; they were asking about our eye colour, our weight,” Šuffner recalls.Vašíček chimes in, “Our compliance team knows absolutely everything about the two of us.” Ultimately, they consider the deal as proof that a modern prop firm could meet the exacting standards of traditional finance. Vašíček says, “This is a great message for the industry, that a modern prop trading firm was able to prove to all parties that something serious like this could happen.”“Credibility Is Not Done in Two Days; It’s Something You Need to Live By”The model of FTMO to become what it calls a “trading powerhouse” has seen varying degrees of success elsewhere. For one, platform providers have made launching prop firms effortless, leading to a flood of copycat firms vying for the same pie. The model also faces a threat from organised hedging groups that game these evaluation systems.Related: Inside the 800-Member Trading Cartel Bleeding Prop Firms DryPlatform providers have even tweaked their backends to account for hedging. For example, FPFX Tech, which provides the infrastructure for over 150 prop firms, has added risk-monitoring tools designed to flag abusive trading behaviour, including hedging. “It’s something we need to take care of, but we built a lot of human capital and know-how on how it needs to be handled,” Vašíček says.He also sees these ‘payout syndicates’ as unfair to users who follow the rules. He notes that back in university, they failed to secure jobs at traditional proprietary firms because, in his view, their CVs didn't meet the Ivy League criteria. “Prop firms are an opportunity, pretty much a life-changing opportunity, because I can become a trader. Now nobody cares about the pedigree,” he notes. The founders believe that integrating FTMO’s model with OANDA’s 30-year positioning and reputation gives them a unique structural advantage in succeeding where others are failing. “Credibility is not done in two days; it’s something you need to live by,” Vašíček observes.Regulation? What About It?In 2024, the industry experienced a supply-chain shock when MetaQuotes abruptly revoked platform licenses from firms sub-leasing its software to serve US prop clients. The disruption prompted several prop firms to acquire small regulated brokerages simply to secure direct software licenses. Šuffner, though, maintains that FTMO’s acquisition of OANDA was never about that. “It was really about making the group stronger and delivering broader services,” he explains. While prop trading appears to have fallen from ESMA’s priority list – the Paris-based agency having begun preliminary reviews in 2024 – the Dutch financial regulator recently ruled in January that instant funding accounts offered by a firm named Unfunded constituted CFD trading. As such, the firm was operating without a proper MiFID II license. The decision was upheld in court; it marks the first instance a European regulator has equated prop trading with investment services. Šuffner notes that they have been closely monitoring this case, remaining attentive to potential regulatory developments and their broader implications for the industry.Still, neither appears particularly worried about regulation, an attitude that is seemingly informed by their many interactions with watchdogs. Aside from the OANDA dealings, Šuffner notes that they “received a letter from the Spanish regulator” to explain their offering. Other regulators also have made inquiries, including ASIC. The firm also has a substantial financial buffer to navigate any cost increases inside an emerging regulatory environment. In 2025, it reported revenues of approximately $420 million, representing a 31% year-on-year growth. “A regulated environment is a higher barrier, right? That means that there will be no hundreds of prop firms, but maybe tens of prop firms will remain,” Vašíček says. Nonetheless, Šuffner wonders about the need to regulate simulated trading. “Regulation is here to protect the client, for good reason,” he says. “With prop firm clients, they are buying a service for a much smaller amount that they basically deposit money with a brokerage firm. So, is there even something to regulate?”Among the most intriguing shifts currently unfolding in the space is that futures-based prop offerings are becoming a new darling for funded traders. There’s good reason: industry pricing data indicate that a $100,000 futures evaluation costs roughly $190 on average, compared with about $420 for a $100,000 CFD/FX one.Unsurprisingly, Šuffner notes that futures “were highly requested from our clients.”An IPO in the Horizon? Despite record top-line growth, 2025 tested the firm's profitability. FTMO’s net income fell by 59% to roughly $37.5 million, a drop attributed to extreme market volatility. What with President Trump's dizzying tariff announcements, tech-sector anxieties and general geopolitical friction, it made predicting where the chips would fall difficult. FTMO missed its projected trader payout targets by 82%.Interestingly, Šuffner treats this primarily as an accounting variance. “I honestly didn’t know about it. I just saw it in the articles,” he says. “It’s an accounting number, but from a company point of view is not something that would harm us in any way.”As they navigate these market conditions, the founders are determined to conduct business on their own terms. They want to distance FTMO from the aggressive, lifestyle-focused marketing that proliferates in the industry. “We never had aggressive marketing, never promised cars, dreams and miracles that are done in four days,” Vašíček emphasises. “For us, it is important to still stay FTMO. We are here for the long term. So we feel this sense of accountability and we want to do serious business and provide great service for the customers.” For now, OANDA and FTMO are kept as two businesses with distinct management teams, though both founders serve as co-CEOs overseeing the overarching structure, a role Vašíček admits is demanding, yet exciting. Vašíček notes that while they are keeping an eye on new developments like prediction markets, they remain focused on their own roadmap rather than moving at the pace dictated by others. “Like every other business, we need to look around and always think about what's the future so we don't end up being dinosaurs,” he says. Without shareholders pressing them, they have the freedom to remain patient and move to the beat of their own drum. As Šuffner highlights, “We own 100% of FTMO and OANDA.” While the founder mentioned in 2023, during an interview with Czech media outlet SZ, that going public did not make sense at the time, they remain open to the possibility, including any other forms of outside investment. “An FTMO ticker sounds really cool,” Šuffner says, only half-joking. This article was written by Adonis Adoni, Arnab Shome at www.financemagnates.com.