@iamBcox804 Posts $500 MyFundedFutures Payout Against $1,510 Risk
On March 5, the X account @iamBcox804 publicly addressed MyFundedFutures over a payout cycle in which a $1,510 risk setting across four accounts resulted in a $500 receipt, raising a documented dispute rather than a celebration.
The post on X, dated Thursday March 5, attaches a video thumbnail and describes a payout event tied to MyFundedFutures. The trader writes that risk settings were configured at $1,510 across four accounts, that a trade moved past that level, and that the resulting payout received was $500. The post is framed as a question to the trading community rather than a celebration, which is unusual among payout proofs and gives the document a distinct evidentiary character.
The proof on its face establishes three things: a public claim by an active account holder, a stated risk parameter of $1,510, and a stated payout receipt of $500. It does not establish the account size, the instrument traded, the plan tier, or the exact payout cycle date, none of which appear in the post text. Readers evaluating the screenshot should treat the $1,510 figure as the trader's pre-set risk threshold rather than a confirmed withdrawal amount.
“I had risk settings at $1510 trading 4 accounts and my trade blew past it. The problem is, I only got paid 500 for it.”— @iamBcox804 on X
Context from the firm's published structure helps frame the gap the trader is questioning. MyFundedFutures runs five plans with profit splits ranging from 80/20 to 90/10 and payout caps that the firm reports as plan-dependent, with the Core plan capped at $5,000 per cycle and Pro at $100,000 cumulative. A $500 receipt against a $1,510 expectation is consistent with a per-cycle cap, a split applied to net profit, or a consistency rule applying on the relevant plan, though the post alone does not confirm which.
What this proof does and does not show matters for credibility. It documents a real trader engaging publicly with MyFundedFutures over a payout discrepancy, which is itself a form of transparency that fully staged testimonials rarely produce. It does not, on its own, validate the firm's payout reliability in either direction; it captures one disputed cycle on undisclosed account terms. The honest read is that the post is evidence of an active payout process and an open dispute, not of a clean win or a clean failure.