FXSurf 

Kibash was put on immediately for a reason. There were known groups running algo’s, flaunting on social media etc. Like it or not, enough was enough. It’s been stated ad nausem that this was already in existing TOS, so no one can say it was “retroactively applied.” People can moan and groan about it or accept it and move on. Many did. There’s a saying, whoever holds the gold, makes the rules. The world is not promised for the price of admission. Play by the rules or not. If people don’t, then they aren’t entitled to anything.

Yes they had a rule called no DCA, but they didnt explain exactly how they were defining it. Having a vague rule then later defining it and making everyone comply with the newer strict definition still isn’t right

Totally it’s a their house their rules scenario, but doesnt excuse the behavior. They just need to simplify and clearly state their rules (ideally with some examples).

The only real issue I have is their definition of DCA. Scaling into 3 micro contracts one tick apart is not gambling, scamming, scheming, or working the system (terms used from their video). Their video makes it sound like this is some obscure thing that "real" or "consistent" traders don't do. They are lumping together people who are gaming the system with those who actually know how to trade.

josh 

The only real issue I have is their definition of DCA.

And maybe the way they are silencing so many of their own complaining customers from their         chat?

And maybe the way they make people sign an agreement with non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses, of wording not available to be read until after people paid?

For me, these are also "issues", saying it mildly.

mariafp 

And maybe the way they are silencing so many of their own complaining customers from their         chat? And maybe the way they make people sign an agreement with non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses, of wording not available to be read until after people paid? For me, these are also "issues", saying it mildly.

Another interesting point, I have seen non-disparagement clauses in all of the contracts I have signed for the different prop firms. So this isn’t a unique Apex thing, but their way of enforcing it is definitely creating a Barbara Streisand effect

jlabtrades 

They just need to simplify and clearly state their rules (ideally with some examples).

This. I'd rather see a set of absolute rules that are clearly defined. I.e do not trade 1 minute before and after a major news event, listed on our timetable.

Their recent idea for the consistency rule is a step in the right direction. They asked about changing it from a loosely defined 30% to a hard 40%. I.e if you're even a cent over then you need to trade more. I am in favour of this type of rule enforcement, as it's clear and fair. Whereas with the current rule, you might get someone having a bad day who denies your payout because your best day is 31%.

josh 

The only real issue I have is their definition of DCA. Scaling into 3 micro contracts one tick apart is not gambling, scamming, scheming, or working the system (terms used from their video). Their video makes it sound like this is some obscure thing that "real" or "consistent" traders don't do. They are lumping together people who are gaming the system with those who actually know how to trade.

Yes, they need to find a way to separate gamblers from steady, consistent traders. Rather than alienating half of their customer base.

mariafp 

And maybe the way they are silencing so many of their own complaining customers from their         chat? And maybe the way they make people sign an agreement with non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses, of wording not available to be read until after people paid? For me, these are also "issues", saying it mildly.

Who cares about non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses. You're only going to disparage after you've already stopped doing business with Apex, and they have no recourse.

And they aren't going to sue anyone, because that would open them up to being Vinny E-mini'ed

planetkill 

Who cares about non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses. You're only going to disparage after you've already stopped doing business with Apex, and they have no recourse. And they aren't going to sue anyone, because that would open them up to being Vinny E-mini'ed

You don't find it a bit strange that they sell you an evaluation service, then when you pass they hit you with a secretive contract that threatens to sue you if you tell anyone the contents or say anything bad about them? You really don't see the issue here?

planetkill 

Who cares about non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses.

Potential customers like myself.

planetkill 

You're only going to disparage after you've already stopped doing business with Apex

I disagree. There are many customers of companies like Topstep, Earn2Trade and Tradeday who make comments online disparaging some aspects of those companies (e.g. Topstep’s terribly slow addressing of their “counting micros the same as minis” problem) while still doing business with them. Some companies welcome that, engage with it, take action over it. Others (like Apex, apparently) try to prevent it, deter it, reserve the right not to pay out over it and threaten to sue people for it.

I know which of those attitudes portrays a company of which I am willing to be a customer, and I am sure I am not the only one.

planetkill 

And they aren't going to sue anyone

No, there I agree. The threat of litigation is not realistic - in my opinion it just addresses what sort of people they are, how they treat customers and how they choose to do business.

mariafp 

Others (like Apex, apparently) try to prevent it, deter it, reserve the right not to pay out over it and threaten to sue people for it.

Yes, to me this is one of the biggest red flags there could be for Apex. The fact that they won't pay us if we leave a negative review is hard to accept.

I don't want to pay for a service where I have to sign away my rights when I join them, where I'm responsible for the connection that they supply, and if there's any issues I'm not allowed to complain or tell anyone about it. It's a very strange way to do business.