Publishing principles.

cryptopropfirmmatch exists to help traders distinguish operationally serious crypto prop firms from marketing-first shops. We publish ranked reviews, head-to-head comparisons, verified payout records, and an evolving Scam Watch. The standards on this page govern every piece of content on the site.

Before a firm review is published, the editorial desk completes the following process:

• Read the 50 most-recent Trustpilot reviews (last 90 days) and aggregate by complaint pattern.
• Cross-check Reddit r/PropFirm and r/Daytrading threads from the last 60 days for the firm name.
• Verify presence on at least one established third-party aggregator (propfirmmatch.com, propfirms.io) and the absence of an active vettedpropfirms.com blacklist entry.
• Locate at least one third-party news mention from a credible publication (LeapRate, FinanceMagnates, FXEmpire, CoinGape, TradersUnion).
• Test the challenge purchase flow end-to-end where commercially feasible.
• Log the firm's current rules verbatim and diff against the prior snapshot if one exists.
• Run payout verification with transaction hashes where on-chain settlement is available.
• Stamp the firm page with the last-verified-on date so readers see how fresh our reading is.

We prefer primary sources. Where we cite third parties — Trustpilot, Reddit, news outlets, or aggregator blacklists — we name them in the prose so the reader can audit our reasoning. Where we report a firm’s own claim (account size, profit split, payout SLA), we mark it as the firm’s claim and verify against an independent observation where one exists.

We do not republish another aggregator’s summary as our own finding. We do not rely on machine-translated reviews when assessing patterns in non-English markets — translations are read for direction, not for quoting.

Every fact in a published review must be traceable to a source in our internal evidence log — a firm’s own published terms, a dated Trustpilot review, a documented news mention, or our own payout test. Where a claim cannot be verified, we either omit it or attribute it explicitly to the firm’s marketing.

When we learn a published fact was wrong, we correct it in place, stamp the page with a new last-updated date, and — for material factual changes — note the correction at the bottom of the page. Our corrections workflow is documented separately on the corrections and feedback page.

An entry on Scam Watch requires evidence, not hearsay. At minimum, two of the following must be documented:

• Multiple independent Trustpilot or Reddit complaints with a matching pattern in the last 90 days.
• A documented rule change that disadvantaged traders after challenge purchase.
• Public blacklist on a credible aggregator (vettedpropfirms, ForexPeaceArmy).
• Failed payout request with transaction evidence.
• Cessation of operations without honoring funded balances.

We do not remove a Scam Watch entry because a firm asked us to, because a firm paid us, or because a firm threatened legal action. We publish a resolution only when the documented issue is verifiably fixed.

We do not sell placement on listicles or comparison tables. We do not accept paid reviews or sponsored firm pages. We do not remove critical content because a firm complained or paid commission. We do not run display advertising that could influence editorial choice. Affiliate relationships are the only revenue stream and are disclosed in full on the ownership and funding page.

We are independent editorial reviewers, not financial advisors, regulators, or accountants. Our coverage is informational. Specific firm specifications and rules change without our knowledge — every reader should verify the firm’s current terms on the firm’s own website before purchasing a challenge. Last-verified dates on every firm page describe how recent our reading is, not when the firm last updated their own rules.