I did, yes. On more than one, it seems? Fair enough, Joe: I've seen no real evidence that the scheme itself is dishonest - only that the person running it has been repeatedly dishonest and deceptive. My wording probably left something to be desired. Given what we know, and can/can't see about MES and TST, it seems very remarkable to me that people are somehow trying to compare, perhaps even to equate, the two. MES is certainly "shabby" at least, even if not demonstrably a "scam". The owner conceals and even lies about his identity. In contrast, in the case of TST, we can see real people with real phone numbers and a real physical address, and a long history, and they're accountable and very public and so responsive that there's apparently almost no aspect of their business that they're not willing to debate and discuss in public. I think the poster who asks (in that other forum) "Do I want to do business with and depend for my income on someone who was repeatedly dishonest and deceptive?" probably has it about right. I think Michael Boulter, who owns that forum and started the thread to warn his own members about MES, is probably a pretty good and experienced judge of these things, too. All "just my opinion", of course.
I don't know about yours but email say's this: If a rule is violated, you’ll be moved back to the Combine.* *Any previous discount offered for a FTP rule violation is no longer valid Currently i am down 460$ so almost half of the max DD allowed. I will avoid trading CL for the next few day's/weeks, current behavior in CL are not good for my trading system.
They emailed me when I blew up my FTP giving me the one time only code for the $1 combine retake. I havent used it yet but will when I get back from holiday.
Obviously when comparing transparency, one cannot compare MES with TST, since there is still limited information on MES regarding their program, vs. an abundance of information on TST. My response to your post was not directed at comparing the two firms, only to address your accusation of MES being a "scam."
"Where is your evidence that it isn't?" Not a single post on the links provided by the OP accuses the firm of breaching a contract with its traders. From just a cursory overview, it seems the firm doesn't collect any fees up front, neither during the trial period nor during the funding period. A few traders claim they were paid their percentage of profits, and a few traders said they "blew up" their accounts, whereby the firm took the loss. Now, one can make an argument and claim "a 50% payout is a scam" when comparing it to Top Step's 100% payout on the first $5,000 and 80% thereafter, however that would STILL be just an opinion. A "scam" would imply the firm willfully deceived traders. Example: if a firm makes a claim that it's registered with a securities exchange when in fact it isn't. Example: if a firm collects funds to open a live trading account, and then puts traders in demo. (See links below). http://www.nevisfsrc.com/advisories-2/warnings/267-nevis-trading-group-llc http://www.dastrader.com/documents/April27-Notice-on-Nonko-g6-Nevis.pdf Xela doesn't have to do business with MES, and neither do you or I, or anyone else for that matter. A trader has to conduct their proper due diligence before doing business with any firm, especially if there's limited information.
That is comparing them, Joe. You've just compared them, in that very sentence. You even used the term "vs". If that isn't a term of direct comparison, what is it? MES emerges very badly from that most important comparison, in my opinion. As you've just mentioned yourself, there's very little information yet about MES's scheme, and apparently none at all about whether people actually get paid the (poor-by-comparison) 50% of what they "earn". What we do know, though, is that it's being run by someone who has repeatedly been dishonest and deceptive. So (as I quickly acknowledged, above) I should perhaps have made my "red flag comments", strictly speaking, about the owner, rather than about the scheme itself. My own perspective is that that's more than enough to put me off, anyway.