Trader @FCatalan16 Says MyFundedFutures Withheld $63K Across Two Payouts
On March 6, 2025, @FCatalan16 posted on X that MyFundedFutures has denied two payouts totaling $63,000 since 2024, a $33,000 request blocked in 2024 and a $29,000 request in 2025. The post is a public dispute, not a payout confirmation.
On March 6, 2025, the trader posted on X that MyFundedFutures has withheld two payouts since 2024, a $33,000 request from 2024 and a $29,000 request from 2025, together totaling $63,000. The post states that the first withdrawal was blocked and that a rule was subsequently changed to justify the denial. The second, the trader argues, was refused on inactivity grounds even though the firm's own website uses the word may rather than stating that profits will be forfeited.
This is not a payout receipt. It is a documented dispute. The post and accompanying image stand as evidence that the trader is publicly contesting two specific amounts on a specific timeline, not as confirmation that funds were earned, owed, or wrongly denied. No account size, instrument, or strategy is disclosed in the post, so the underlying trading activity behind the $63,000 figure cannot be verified from the source.
“This is not a mistake, it's a pattern.”— @FCatalan16 on X, March 6, 2025
MyFundedFutures, founded in Texas in 2023, runs a US futures only program with five plans whose splits range from 80/20 to 90/10 and whose payout caps differ by tier, from $5,000 per cycle on Core to $100,000 cumulative on Pro, as the firm reports. The plurality of plans, each with its own consistency, drawdown, and cap rules, is one of the structural frictions traders have flagged when payout eligibility is contested, and it is the same rule surface the post here points to.
What the proof establishes is narrow but real: a named trader, on a public account, has put two disputed amounts and a sequence of events on the record, and has tagged the firm by name. What it does not establish is the merit of either side's position. There is no screenshot of an approved payout, no confirmation of denial language from the firm, and no third party adjudication. Readers should treat the $63,000 as a claim under dispute rather than a settled fact.