YassineCrypto Fund Trader: First Prop Firm with Proof of Reserves
Crypto Fund Trader review companion: evaluation paths and platform-specific rules
Yassine's July 2023 Crypto Fund Trader review introduces an evaluation service and explicitly mentions a two-phase route before moving through account choices, public coverage and Discord. The surviving captions do not retain the complete screen tables, so this companion explains the programme through later primary documentation and original calculations. The distinctive questions are the difference between a fixed and trailing loss floor, the daily balance snapshot, instrument permissions for each platform, the later Bybit connection and the treatment of opposite positions. These mechanics are kept separate from the older promotion and later regulatory information, giving readers a dated, practical way to interpret the service rather than a reconstructed historical tariff.
The two-phase introduction establishes the historical subject
Watch this chapter ↗ 01:23The recovered passage says that traders first pass an assessment through two stages. That identifies the review as an evaluation-service introduction. It does not preserve all target or fee labels, so the appropriate historical record names the two-phase discussion without assigning newer table entries to it. An evaluation route should be written as a sequence: purchase access, obtain the relevant account, trade under its conditions, complete its objectives and follow the stated review or transition. Each step answers a different question about the account's status.
The later official catalogue contains several paths, which makes the precise path name especially important. A one-phase, two-phase or other programme can differ in loss mechanics rather than simply in the number of tests. Write the selected model beside every percentage and stage in a comparison sheet. Keep the 2023 publication and the later product sheet as different versions. A reader can then understand the archived walkthrough while asking the correct current question about the chosen route. This prevents a familiar brand name from becoming an assumption that all account sizes, phases and conditions remained unchanged since the original recording.
The programme measures simulated performance
Current CFT material describes virtual evaluation capital and performance-based rewards. Its terms identify educational services and separate platform providers from the programme entity. A displayed balance is therefore a programme reference, while the actual fee and an actual reward receipt belong in a personal spending record. Keep those quantities separate when judging the experience. A completed purchase gives the defined access under its agreement; it does not transfer ownership of the whole nominal account balance to the user.
Use an original hypothetical access fee of 75 for an account labelled 12,000. The cash ledger records 75 of expenditure, and the programme journal records a 12,000 reference under the selected conditions. A simulated gain of 600 would be a performance entry, not automatically a personal receipt of 600. Eligibility, agreement and a completed payment are separate records. This makes it possible to compare the cost of different access choices without treating simulated results as money already received. It also keeps repeated purchase costs visible over time, rather than allowing a series of large nominal balances to obscure what the user actually paid to participate.
A daily balance snapshot has its own timestamp
Later official evaluation material bases the daily loss calculation on the balance at 00:05 UTC, with the selected path's percentage, while breaches are checked through equity. The balance reference and current equity are therefore different values with different roles. Save the daily reference and its timestamp before interpreting a result. An open position can change equity after the reference is recorded, so a journal limited to completed losses would omit information needed to understand the current distance from the threshold.
In an original hypothetical calculation, a daily reference of 12,400 and a five-percent allowance produce a distance of 620 and a simplified floor of 11,780. Current equity of 12,050 leaves 270 above that threshold, regardless of whether the latest movement is already closed. If a new day has a different balance reference, the daily floor should be recomputed under the rule rather than copied from yesterday. Keep the reset time next to the local clock interpretation. This lets a trader explain why two similar equity readings on different days can have different remaining daily room, and identify the exact snapshot that needs to be compared with the dashboard when a calculation appears inconsistent.
Fixed and trailing overall floors are different mechanisms
Current two-phase documentation describes a fixed overall limit, whereas the one-phase route has a trailing allowance that can stop at the initial balance. These are different mechanisms, so neither should be used as a generic CFT rule. A fixed floor uses its defined initial reference; a trailing floor responds to qualifying higher balances. Write the mechanism, qualifying value and lock behaviour in the programme sheet. The word drawdown alone does not explain which calculation applies to the account under consideration.
An original simplified illustration begins at 12,000. A ten-percent fixed floor would be 10,800. For a different hypothetical route with a six-percent trailing distance of 720 and a lock at 12,000, the initial floor would be 11,280; a qualifying balance of 12,400 would raise it to 11,680; a balance of 12,900 would reach the 12,000 lock. Those are different account examples, not conditions combined into one product. After the lock, a balance of 12,200 would leave only 200 above that floor. This explains why nominal size alone is a poor description of operational room and why the account's history matters when its floor moves with prior gains.
The platform determines the available instrument set
The later programme pages present Match-Trader, MetaTrader 5 and Bybit access with different instrument arrangements. Select the platform and path together, then inspect the actual permitted instruments and units. A ticker name on a marketing page is not a substitute for the executable instrument specification. For a derivative, quantity, contract size, quote currency and trading hours belong in the plan. A crypto-focused brand can also display other market categories, but a chosen account does not automatically inherit every instrument listed across the whole site.
Create an original instrument worksheet with symbol, quantity unit, price unit, contract multiplier, session and permitted account. If a platform uses lots while another uses asset quantities, convert using the actual specification before comparing exposures. A one-unit instruction in two different interfaces may represent different monetary amounts. Keep the chart view and order ticket linked to the same instrument identity. When changing platform or account, rebuild that worksheet from the relevant specification instead of copying a quantity that was convenient elsewhere. This makes platform choice practical: it concerns the instruments and controls the trader can correctly operate under the chosen programme, rather than merely the visual style of the chart.
The later Bybit connection has a distinct setup
CFT's later Bybit page describes selecting an evaluation, using a personal Bybit account and connecting through the supplied API setup. This is later platform context, separate from the 2023 recording. An evaluation dashboard and a connected platform account have different roles. The setup instructions define the assigned connection and account, so maintain a private record of which programme is linked to which account. Provider eligibility remains its own condition, rather than being resolved by the evaluation service's general marketing.
Treat a connection as a specific technical arrangement with an identifier, purpose and permission set. Follow the official onboarding for that arrangement, and keep secret key material outside screenshots or support messages. If the dashboard and platform disagree, record the account section, timestamp and visible status without exposing credentials. A connection question can then identify the affected evaluation and exact state. Do not assume that a different personal trading balance is the assigned programme balance, or that changing a connection is an ordinary cosmetic edit. The applicable instructions may give it a direct effect on evaluation status. Knowing the mapping lets the user distinguish a platform-access issue from a programme-progress issue before seeking a specific answer.
Opposite positions need the programme's definition
The official evaluation-rules page describes restrictions on opposite-direction positions, including cross-account arrangements and distinctions between different pairs. Read that rule using its full scope rather than assuming a platform's ability to submit both directions means the evaluation permits it. A programme can classify economic exposure differently from the order interface. The working journal should therefore record the underlying asset, direction, account and overlap in time, not just the ticket numbers that happen to appear separately on screen.
For an original illustration, a short exposure and a long exposure to the same asset can offset part of each other economically even when entered through separate symbols or accounts. Two ticket numbers do not necessarily describe two independent ideas. Make a timeline of when each position was open and note which underlying exposure each represents. If the permitted treatment is unclear for a particular combination, ask about that combination using its symbol, account and timing. This is more useful than asking whether hedging is generally possible. The platform might be able to execute a set of instructions while the programme's own rule still restricts that set, so interface capability and contractual permission should remain separate entries in the review.
Price result, trading costs and holding costs should reconcile
The later platform documentation distinguishes trading commissions and holding-cost arrangements, including provider-native fees for the connected exchange route. A programme result needs the actual fee records as well as gross price movement. Save the fee unit and whether the charge is per side, per quantity or calculated through another basis. A claim about a narrow spread does not by itself describe total completed cost. Funding and swap records also need their own sign and timestamp because a holding period can change the net result without a new entry or exit.
Use an original invented result of 24 units of gross price gain, two execution charges totalling 3 and a holding payment of 2. The simplified net is 19. If the holding entry is instead a receipt of 2, the net becomes 23 under otherwise identical assumptions. Neither scenario is a current fee quote; they explain how to reconcile a record. When a displayed profit differs from the balance change, compare the completed trade, commission and holding entries before attributing the difference to an unexplained adjustment. If different currencies are used, retain the conversion rate and time rather than adding unlike units. A reconciled record shows which element changed and gives support a precise transaction or charge to inspect.
A reward request follows review and its own conditions
Current terms describe performance-based rewards under the service arrangement, rather than a guarantee that every displayed gain becomes a payment. The review and request should therefore have their own status record. Put the gross requested amount, the applicable share, any stated costs and the account's confirmed adjustment in separate fields. A target achieved during evaluation and an accepted later reward answer different questions. The programme identity should accompany both so that a request is not planned using an unrelated path's conditions.
An original hypothetical eligible amount of 800 under a seventy-five-percent share would produce 600 before any other relevant deductions. If the account is adjusted by a different gross amount than the personal receipt, preserve both records rather than expecting the two balances to match. Save request submission, review decision and receipt separately. That makes it clear whether an unresolved question concerns performance eligibility, agreement, payment processing or the destination transfer. After a balance adjustment, recompute the remaining loss space using the actual floor mechanism. A quantity that represented a modest part of the room before the request can represent more afterwards, so the next operational plan should use the new confirmed account state.
Later regulatory information and the old community references are separate
Watch this chapter ↗ 06:53The archived captions refer to press coverage and later Discord. Those are historical public-context references, separate from licensing and account results. FINMA's primary warning list names Cryptofundtrader and its domain in an entry dated 23 August 2024, after this video. FINMA explains that its warning list concerns suspected unauthorised financial-market activity and that inclusion does not necessarily mean illegal activity. The company's current terms separately say its Swiss entity is not authorised or licensed in Switzerland. These dated primary statements should be read precisely, without turning a community reference or corporate address into regulatory approval.
A complete decision sheet brings together the original publication, current programme identity, fee, phase sequence, daily reference, overall mechanism, instrument permissions, platform connection, strategy rules and reward status. The old GJW9 seven-percent promotion belongs in the archived campaign record, while a later purchase uses its final quoted configuration and terms. Keep each unresolved issue as a named question and save the relevant written answer. The review then remains useful as an introduction, and the companion provides the actual measurement relationships needed to examine a later offering. It also allows the reader to distinguish historical statements, current service documentation, regulator information and original educational arithmetic without mixing them into one undated claim.
Review links & sources
Explore the platform ↗This review is sponsored. Researched companion to the 11 July 2023 review. Fragmented captions preserve two evaluation phases, account sizes, a press reference and Discord but not a complete historical tariff or personal result. The original GJW9 7% promotion is historical. Official documentation checked on 3 October 2026 provides later simulated-programme context. FINMA's Cryptofundtrader/domain warning-list entry is dated 23 August 2024 and therefore postdates the video; FINMA says inclusion is not necessarily a finding of illegal activity. Current platform and programme documents must be read together, with provider jurisdiction and verification conditions applying independently. Hypothetical calculations below are original and are not reported trades or payments.
Original video & source ↗Official documentation & sources
THE ORIGINAL CHANNEL VIDEO
Watch the
full walkthrough.
This page brings together the original video and its topic collection. Watch on YouTube for the creator’s full presentation, demonstrations, and description.
Watch on YouTube
