There’s a lot of truth in the direction here, but I’d separate industry mechanics from claims that require firm-level data. Two-step accounts can be attractive for both traders and firms, but saying they have the “highest payout rate” requires actual payout data across account models. Current industry data doesn’t establish that as a universal rule. The same applies to “firms get rid of traders with multiple 10%+ payouts.” Some firms may apply additional risk or consistency scrutiny to unusually profitable accounts, but that is very different from proving an industry-wide policy. And “instant funding is a scam” is simply too broad. Instant models have different economics, drawdown structures and payout mechanics. Some are poor products, some are legitimate products, and the terms matter more than the label. The day-trader point also needs nuance. Firms don’t inherently have a reason to dislike day trading. What creates risk for a firm is aggressive exposure, concentration, correlated positions, abnormal sizing and behaviour that makes the account economically unattractive to replicate or hedge. And the 2% rule is not a universal ban threshold either. Risking 2%+ per trade can be perfectly legal at some firms and an explicit violation at others. The real question is the firm’s actual drawdown structure and risk policy. The strongest prop-trading advice isn’t “memorize five secrets.” It’s this: Separate what is statistically observed, what is contractually prohibited, and what is merely trader folklore. That distinction is where serious prop traders stop repeating narratives and start understanding the business model.