Yassineأفضل منصة Prop Firm للمبتدئين والمحترفين | Traderscale
Traderscale review: challenge rules, checkout choices and the payout evidence shown
This article follows the Traderscale walkthrough published on Yassine Geek’s channel on 23 June 2026. It explains the challenge comparison, account sizes, funding-stage rules, checkout add-ons and payment screens described in the recording. It also examines how the video presents customer reviews, a football partnership, team information and a public payout page. Those are dated observations, not a live verification of every claim made by the company. The original description links to https://www.traderscale.com/ and lists the code YASSINE15. The website link is reproduced exactly; the article does not invent an affiliate tracking parameter or assume the code remains valid today.
What the review sets out to explain
Watch this chapter ↗ 00:18Yassine introduces Traderscale as a prop-firm platform and thanks it for sponsoring the video before opening the website. He then gives a simplified explanation of the category: traders undertake an evaluation, and successful participants can move into a program with a profit-sharing arrangement. That introduction helps new viewers understand why the page contains challenge targets and loss limits rather than the ordinary balance-and-deposit structure of a broker account. The article uses the recording’s terminology without assuming every program represents the same operational model.
The important distinction is between an account’s advertised size, a fee paid for access and the contractual entitlement after an evaluation. A large headline account number does not itself explain whether the environment is simulated, how rewards are calculated or when a payout can be requested. Those questions are part of the current agreement. The video is most useful as a map of the rules and purchasing choices Yassine encountered, while a prospective participant still needs to read the documents attached to the exact challenge configuration under consideration.
Customer reviews as a research starting point
Watch this chapter ↗ 02:12The review visits Trustpilot and discusses an average score around 4.3 with roughly one thousand reviews in the recording. The accompanying description gives a slightly different rounded score of 4.4 and more than one thousand reviews. That discrepancy is a reason to preserve dates and source boundaries rather than silently present one number as a current verified fact. The article does not independently authenticate each review or use the aggregate score to establish that every participant receives the same experience.
Yassine’s practical emphasis is on reading comments rather than selecting a company solely from marketing material. A detailed complaint or explanation can raise a more specific question than an overall score: which challenge was used, which rule was disputed, how the company replied and whether the account terms at that time were clear. A review platform can therefore contribute to research, but it does not replace the contract or establish future reliability. The video shows this research route and argues for transparency; it is not an independent audit of all published customer stories.
Public presence and the football partnership
Watch this chapter ↗ 02:44Yassine discusses the company’s public presence and then visits an announcement about a Sunderland football partnership. The original description includes a link to the club’s announcement page. This is more specific than merely showing a partnership logo because it gives readers a primary page to inspect. The recording also includes football commentary that is not relevant to the evaluation rules, so this article does not turn that commentary into verified sporting results or use it to assess the challenge’s financial suitability.
A public partnership can establish a form of brand visibility, but its meaning should be kept separate from obligations to challenge participants. A football club announcement does not define payout eligibility, acceptable trading strategies or how a loss limit is calculated. The practical value of the segment is showing another public reference that can be checked alongside the company’s own pages. It is one piece of the research picture, not a guarantee that a participant’s claim will be approved or that the service will remain unchanged after the video was recorded.
The advertised workflow and platform choices
Watch this chapter ↗ 03:51The recording summarizes the workflow as selecting a challenge, trading and later claiming eligible profits. Yassine mentions support routes and language options, and describes payout processing as usually within approximately three days after a request. That statement belongs to the presenter’s account of the offering. The video does not show a personal payout request measured from submission to receipt, so the article does not convert the stated processing time into an independently tested service level.
The platform selection includes MetaTrader 5 and Match-Trader in the tour. A person considering a challenge should connect that choice with the precise product tier, instrument set and terms shown during checkout. Familiarity with MT5 does not establish that another interface has identical symbol specifications or permissions. Similarly, available support languages are useful practical information, but the recording does not compare the resolution of real disputes in each language. The core contribution is a clear view of the purchasing and support routes visible at that time.
Account sizes and challenge labels
Watch this chapter ↗ 05:01The challenge selector shows several advertised account sizes, including ten thousand, twenty-five thousand, fifty thousand, one hundred thousand, two hundred thousand and four hundred thousand dollars. Yassine moves between one-step and two-step products and refers to different challenge labels. Because those labels and prices are part of an interactive comparison, a viewer must track the selected product rather than assume every number on the page belongs to a single plan. The article follows the sections separately for that reason.
An advertised account size is not the same as a cash withdrawal available at purchase. Its practical meaning depends on the program agreement and the loss limits associated with the account. A useful comparison record should include the challenge name, selected size, platform, evaluation stages, fee and eventual reward conditions. Leaving out the selected product can produce an apparently simple price comparison that actually mixes different rule sets. The recording makes the selector visible, but it does not substitute for saving the terms of the exact configuration chosen later.
The one-step evaluation in the recording
Watch this chapter ↗ 05:17For the one-step example, Yassine describes an unlimited trading period, a four-percent daily-loss limit, an eight-percent maximum-loss limit and a ten-percent profit target. He mentions leverage of 1:30 and a minimum of one trading day. He also says a consistency rule is not required during that evaluation. These are the rules as presented for the selected plan in June 2026. The recording does not fully derive the loss-limit formula or explain every permitted and prohibited strategy.
That missing calculation detail is significant. A daily limit can depend on a reset time and on whether floating positions are included, while an overall limit can be measured against different references. The headline percentages alone do not resolve those questions. Likewise, an unlimited period removes one possible time constraint but does not remove trading rules or eligibility requirements. A reader should therefore use this segment to identify the fields needing clarification rather than treat the comparison card as the whole agreement. The article records the figures without recommending a level of risk to use against them.
How the one-step funded stage differs
Watch this chapter ↗ 06:19The recording then moves to the funded-stage column for the one-step product. Yassine repeats the four-percent daily and eight-percent overall limits and the 1:30 leverage description. He discusses a first payout after thirty days, later payouts every two weeks, a profit share of eighty or ninety percent and a minimum of ten trading days. Importantly, he describes a consistency requirement in this funded-stage discussion, despite saying it is absent from the evaluation stage earlier.
This illustrates why stage-by-stage reading matters. A rule that is absent during an evaluation may appear later in the program, and a profit-share upgrade may have its own purchasing or eligibility conditions. A user who reads only the evaluation card could miss the restrictions that govern a payout request. The video identifies several differences but does not fully calculate the consistency formula or show a completed payout under it. The appropriate next step is to read the applicable funded-stage rules directly and preserve those terms with the account configuration.
One-step prices and their limits as evidence
Watch this chapter ↗ 06:48The one-step price discussion includes approximately 146 dollars for the smallest selected account and then higher prices for larger sizes, including 356, 476, 766, 1,200 and 2,300 dollars in the spoken tour. Those values are a dated price ladder from the recording. They should not be treated as a live catalogue, especially because later checkout selections and add-ons can change the final amount. The article preserves them as context for how Yassine compares the tiers, not as an offer that the blog can fulfill.
A fee comparison should also include what is actually purchased. Account size alone does not establish the number of evaluation stages, the platform, the permitted features or refund conditions. Two fees can look different because the products contain different restrictions or optional upgrades. The recording later moves into a specific checkout example, which is a better place to observe the selected configuration. For any current purchase, the final order summary and associated rules need to agree with the product comparison a reader believes they selected.
The two-step evaluation sequence
Watch this chapter ↗ 07:13Yassine’s two-step example describes a first-stage daily-loss limit of five percent, an overall limit of ten percent and a profit target of ten percent. The minimum trading period is described as three days. For the second stage, the recording retains the five-percent daily and ten-percent overall limits while reducing the target to five percent, again mentioning three trading days. A leverage figure of 1:100 is stated during the second-stage discussion. The article does not fill in an unclear leverage fragment from the earlier caption.
The sequence is useful because it separates passing the first stage from completing the evaluation as a whole. A lower second-stage target does not remove the loss limits or establish that the stage is automatically easier for every strategy. The video also mentions a free retry in the second stage, but it does not read every condition attached to that retry. The current FAQ and agreement would need to establish when it is granted, which failures qualify and whether other account settings change. The article records the feature while retaining those unresolved details.
Refunds and two-step price examples
Watch this chapter ↗ 08:48The recording describes a challenge-fee refund associated with the first payout and compares that timing with other programs in the presenter’s commentary. It then gives two-step price examples, including approximately 97 dollars for ten thousand, 197 for twenty-five thousand, 297 for fifty thousand, 500 for one hundred thousand, 950 for two hundred thousand and 1,900 for four hundred thousand. These figures relate to the selected product shown at that point, rather than every possible checkout configuration.
A refund described as linked to a payout is different from an unconditional refund simply for buying a challenge. Eligibility may depend on passing the evaluation, meeting subsequent rules and obtaining an approved payout. The video does not supply a personal receipt showing that complete sequence. Its contribution is drawing attention to the advertised refund timing so that a reader can ask a precise question about it. Do not subtract the fee from a cost comparison as if repayment were automatic; first understand the conditions under which the program says that repayment becomes available.
What the payout page does and does not show
Watch this chapter ↗ 09:38Yassine opens a public payout page and discusses links to blockchain explorers, including transfers associated with USDT and Rise-related routes. He describes numerous pages of transactions and a cumulative amount above five million dollars in the recording. The original description links to the company’s payout page. This gives readers a specific research destination, but the article does not independently reconcile the totals, identify every recipient or authenticate every transfer as a reward owed under a particular challenge agreement.
A visible transaction can show that value moved on a network, while questions about purpose and eligibility require additional evidence. It does not necessarily disclose how many requests were rejected, whether all obligations were fulfilled or what contractual terms applied to a recipient. The useful approach is to inspect the linked evidence and keep the company’s summary separate from the underlying entries. The video emphasizes transparency through those links, but it is not a comprehensive payout audit. Its public examples should not be presented as proof that a new participant will qualify for a payout.
Team information and community channels
Watch this chapter ↗ 11:13The tour visits a team section that lists leadership, operations, support, engineering and marketing roles. Yassine describes a team of more than twenty-five people across several countries. Later, he shows Telegram and Discord community routes and discusses updates and insights shared there. These details help readers identify the public-facing structure of the service. The recording does not independently verify every employment relationship or test how a community question becomes a formal support case.
A named team page can be more informative than an anonymous brand page, but the practical contractual questions remain separate. Community posts also need to be distinguished from binding terms, especially when they discuss temporary offers or new features. A useful habit is to keep the account agreement, formal support correspondence and general community announcements as different kinds of information. The review shows where the company presents its people and communities, providing additional places to research rather than treating public visibility as a complete measure of operational or financial reliability.
Checkout selections and paid add-ons
Watch this chapter ↗ 12:40The checkout example selects a one-hundred-thousand account and offers a platform choice between MT5 and Match-Trader. Yassine then examines optional additions, including a ninety-percent profit-share option in place of the default eighty percent, weekend holding, an option described around stop-loss requirements and a fourteen-day payout option. The video also states that the profit-share upgrade adds twenty percent to the fee. These are purchasing choices shown in the recording, not proof that every feature is included in the base challenge.
This section is important because optional features change the comparison. A person who remembers a headline profit share or payout interval may not remember that the checkout offered it as an add-on. The order summary should therefore show the actual selected options, their fee impact and the rules attached to them. Some spoken price figures become unclear in the automatic captions, so the article does not reconstruct a precise final total from those fragments. The video’s useful evidence is the existence and interaction of the choices, while the current checkout remains the place to confirm a purchase amount.
The description link and YASSINE15 code
Watch this chapter ↗ 14:16Yassine enters the code YASSINE15 and describes a fifteen-percent discount in the checkout demonstration. The same code appears in the original video description, together with the direct Traderscale website URL. This article reproduces the code as a dated detail of the review, rather than asserting that it is still accepted or that it can be combined with every campaign. The recording also mentions another temporary football-related promotion earlier, which should not be assumed to stack with the creator’s code.
A direct website URL does not reveal a tracking parameter, so the blog does not manufacture one. The commercial relationship remains relevant because the video is sponsored and its description includes a referral disclosure. If a reader explores a current checkout, the actual displayed discount and final amount need to be checked before any payment. The article’s role is to preserve the original source accurately. It does not create an offer, guarantee a saving or imply that a June demonstration fixes the price of a challenge months later.
Payment screens and account delivery
Watch this chapter ↗ 14:51The payment flow shows card-related options and a cryptocurrency route. Yassine chooses a wallet-transfer example, selects an asset and network and opens the payment details. He stresses sending the requested amount with the relevant fees, then says account information is delivered by email after payment is received. This is a walkthrough of the interface sequence. The article does not reuse the displayed wallet address or treat it as a permanent payment destination for future readers.
A payment request is specific to the order and can have its own currency, network, amount and time conditions. A familiar token name alone is insufficient to identify a correct transfer. The recording also does not provide a detailed dispute or refund scenario after an incorrect payment. Its practical lesson is to follow the order’s own payment instructions and distinguish the challenge purchase from subsequent account credentials. The demonstration ends at the described delivery process, not at a personally documented sequence of passing the challenge and receiving a funded-stage reward.
FAQ rules and the final reading checklist
Watch this chapter ↗ 16:42Near the end, Yassine opens the FAQ and discusses restrictions, news trading, the absence of a particular automatic-liquidation rule and no advertised payout cap. The description similarly emphasizes flexibility. Those statements need to be read alongside the exact challenge and funded-stage terms; absence of one named restriction does not mean absence of all restrictions. The recording does not demonstrate every permitted strategy or test the boundary of the loss rules. A FAQ summary can guide research without replacing the agreement governing a participant’s account.
For a second reading, return to the rule table with a structured checklist: selected product, size, platform, stage, target, daily and overall loss calculation, minimum days, consistency requirement, optional upgrades, refund conditions and payout schedule. Then inspect the current terms and preserve the order summary. The video provides a substantial tour of the purchasing choices and public references, but it does not guarantee a participant’s success or payout eligibility. The original website link and creator code belong to a sponsored review. This article documents what that review explains while keeping untested claims and present-day conditions outside its conclusions.
Review links & sources
Explore the platform ↗This review is sponsored. I may earn a commission if you use the affiliate link from the video description.
Original video & source ↗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
