Does TX3 Funding pay out?
The verdict, the risk score and the figures behind them.
We found something serious: a payout pattern, a severe clause, or regulator action.
TX3 Funding does pay some traders, but a documented wave of retroactive rule changes in mid 2026 let it breach and refuse accounts that had already qualified. This is the rebrand of TopTier Trader, and the firm is still trading and still selling challenges.
- Dated trader reports confirm real payouts through roughly June 2026, and one trader documented a seized account that the risk team reviewed and gave back.
- From August 2026 a cluster of independent reports describes payouts refused at the moment of withdrawal, with accounts declared breached under new migration rules.
- One trader published the firm's own email stating that because a payout had already been taken, that account would be breached and the second capped at a 2 percent payout.
- The Terms let the firm rewrite the rules at any time with no notice, forfeit payouts on termination, and delay or deny a withdrawal at its discretion.
- The community is still busy, but marketing has wound down: the video channel has not posted in nine months and the linked TikTok account is gone.
Risk breakdown
Six axes, each scored 1-10. Higher means more risk.
Six axes, scored 1 to 10, where a higher number means more risk. Being unregulated is normal for a prop firm and is not scored against them.
- Identity & transparency6/10
Founders named and publicly visible with a five year history, but four entity names appear across one document set and the Terms bind users to a Dubai company not listed in the company details.
- Payout8/10
Real dated payouts through June 2026, then a time clustered pattern of refusals across six countries with account numbers, amounts and the firm's own email quoted.
- Terms & rug-pull risk9/10
Retroactive amendment with no notice, forfeiture of payouts on termination, discretionary payout denial and an unpublished overriding agreement, and the amendment right was actually exercised against funded accounts.
- Trading conditions7/10
Terms state everything is simulated while marketing advertises a True ECN broker routing to liquidity providers and a live capital stage; credit for naming the broker and disclosing simulation plainly.
- Reputation8/10
Recent independent reports are dominated by payout refusals, positives are largely solicited while negatives are unprompted, though the firm answers 43 percent of negative reviews publicly.
- Operational & social6/10
Video channel dormant nine months and the linked TikTok account is gone, offset by a genuinely active Discord of nearly 50,000 members and public replies to criticism.
Payout reality
Whether the money actually arrives, and what we could evidence.
Money has genuinely left this firm, and money has also been stopped at the door. Both are evidenced, and the timing is what matters.
- What we could evidence positively: dated trader reports of completed payouts running from January to June 2026. A trader in Japan reported two completed payments on 17 June 2026; others in the United States reported payouts delivered on 2 April and 22 May 2026, and a January 2026 report stated plainly that the firm pays what traders earn. None of these named an amount, which is why they are treated as modest rather than strong proof.
- A working appeal: a trader in Thailand described an account seized over a 3 percent rule error that the risk team reviewed and returned. That is a real mitigating fact and the kind of behaviour a bad actor does not show.
- What we could evidence negatively: from August 2026 a tight cluster of independent reports from Italy, France, Britain, the Netherlands, the United States and Indonesia describes the same failure. A trader in Italy published the firm's reply verbatim, that since a payout had already been received on one funded account it would be breached under the migration terms while the second would be capped at a 2 percent payout, and gave account numbers 10905 and 12659. A trader in France described the consistency score being reduced to 25 percent, a 17,000 dollar profit requirement that took six months, and then refusal on grounds of reverse trading. Others describe 3,600 dollars refused with no explanation and funded traders reset to the evaluation stage.
- What we could not establish: the firm's own ticker showed payouts dated 8 and 10 September 2026 and a banner claiming 35 million dollars paid, but those are the firm's own unverifiable figures. The Discord payout channel needs membership to read, so we could not confirm current payouts independently.
The honest summary: payouts were flowing into mid 2026, and the recent record is dominated by refusals tied to rules changed after traders had qualified.
How the program works
The evaluation, the funded phase and what the firm keeps.
A buyer pays a one time, non refundable fee for a simulated evaluation. Account sizes run from 5,000 to 300,000 dollars of virtual capital, with scaling advertised to 2 million. Forex runs on Match-Trader, futures on ProjectX, with Arizet also named.
- Formats: One Phase, Two Phase Pro, Flex, and Instant Funding, which skips the evaluation.
- Price: a 100,000 dollar Instant Standard account was offered at 475 dollars; the comparison table advertises a 100,000 dollar two phase account at 399 dollars.
- Drawdown: the Instant Standard configurator shows 3 percent daily and 5 percent maximum; the help centre states daily drawdown is 5 percent of the initial balance and resets at 5 PM EST.
- Profit split: advertised up to 90 percent, though the configurator for Instant Standard shows 80/20.
- Payout cadence: One Phase pays 3 days after the first trade then every 3 days; Flex pays 10 days after the first trade then every 7 days; Pro pays on demand at 2 percent profit.
- Consistency: published as a 50 percent threshold on 1 Phase, none on Flex, and defined only as based on account size on Pro Funded.
The firm's own pages disagree on minimum trading days, quoting no minimum days in one panel and 7 days in the configurator alongside it.
Who they are
The company behind the brand, and where it is registered.
Brand: TX3 Funding, formerly TopTier Trader, rebranded 25 September 2025.
Legal entity in the Terms: TX3 Funding FZCO, with the agreement governed by the laws of Dubai.
Also named on the same page: TX3 Funding LLC, 8 The Green Street, STE A, Dover, Delaware 19901, and TX3 Funding Global Ltd, registration 2025-00751, Office No. 19, Sea Grape Avenue, Rodney Bay, Gros-Islet, Saint Lucia.
Fourth name: the official Facebook page states that Top Tier Trader LLC is responsible for it.
Registered: Delaware, Saint Lucia and a Dubai free zone; support contact is listed in the U.A.E.
Website: tx3funding.com, registered 7 March 2022; the Since 2021 claim traces to the predecessor brand.
Founded: 2021 as TopTier Trader by Cue Banks and Anthony Williams, who remain the public faces.
Team disclosed: yes, founders are named and appear publicly on video.
Where it accepts traders from: worldwide except a restricted list including Israel, New Zealand, Iran, North Korea and Russia.
The material gap is not secrecy, it is contradiction: four entity names appear across one document set and a trader cannot tell which one owes them money.
Company on record
The legal entity named in the terms, as found on a public registry.
- Legal name
- TX3 Funding FZCO (named in the Terms of Use), alongside TX3 Funding LLC and TX3 Funding Global Ltd
- Registration number
- 2025-00751 (TX3 Funding Global Ltd, Saint Lucia)
- Jurisdiction
- United Arab Emirates (Dubai free zone) for the contracting entity, with companies also in Delaware and Saint Lucia
- Registered address
- Office No. 19, Sea Grape Avenue, Rodney Bay, Gros-Islet, Saint Lucia; and 8 The Green Street, STE A, Dover, Delaware 19901
- Registry
- Saint Lucia Registry of Companies and Intellectual Property; Delaware Division of Corporations
Why this verdict
How the findings add up to this verdict.
HIGH_RISK, not a confirmed failure and not a collapse. The firm is trading, answering and paying some people. What earns the grade is a specific, evidenced mechanism for not paying.
- The terms permit it and the firm used it. Clause 14 allows the rules to be rewritten at any time with continued use counting as acceptance. Traders then documented exactly that being applied to already funded, already paid accounts under migration rules.
- The refusals share one shape. Same failure mode, clustered in August 2026, across at least six countries, with account numbers, amounts and the firm's own wording quoted. That meets the bar for a pattern rather than a run of unhappy customers.
- Recovery is capped. Liability is limited to fees paid in the preceding twelve months and disputes go to arbitration in Dubai, so a refused five figure payout is not realistically recoverable.
- Marketing contradicts the binding document. The site advertises a True ECN broker with orders going to liquidity providers while the Terms state no live trades are executed for users.
- Against all that: real payouts, a documented successful appeal, a busy community of nearly 50,000, and public replies to criticism. That is why this is not scored at the top of the scale.
Counterpoints
The strongest case in their favour, and what would change our mind.
The case in their favour
The strongest honest case for TX3 Funding is that it is an established operator having a bad year, not a fraud.
- It has a five year trading history under two brands, named founders who appear publicly, and a back catalogue of hundreds of videos. That is not a disposable shell.
- Payouts are evidenced by independent, dated trader reports across several months and several countries, and the review profile still carries 83 percent five star ratings over more than 4,000 reviews.
- It publishes a numeric consistency threshold of 50 percent on its 1 Phase product and states none applies on Flex. Many competitors leave this entirely undefined, and publishing a number removes discretion from the firm.
- It documented a case of reversing its own error and returning a seized account after review, which shows a functioning appeal route.
- It replies to 43 percent of negative reviews and answered a public scam accusation on its own page rather than deleting it.
- It names its broker, TX3 Markets, which holds a South African FSCA authorisation, and it states plainly in its Terms that accounts are simulated rather than pretending otherwise.
- The Discord community remains large and active, which is not the profile of a firm that has stopped operating.
What would change our mind
Specific, checkable things that would move this verdict in either direction.
- Upward: dated payout artefacts naming amounts, from independent traders, covering September 2026 onward, showing the August refusals were a one off migration event rather than a new normal.
- Upward: the firm publishing the migration terms in full, and restoring or compensating the accounts breached under them, particularly the Italian trader's accounts 10905 and 12659.
- Upward: a published numeric consistency threshold for Pro Funded accounts replacing the current based on account size wording, and a notice period added to the amendment clause.
- Upward: publication of the separate Customer Agreement that the Terms say overrides them.
- Downward: payout refusal reports continuing past September 2026 while the storefront keeps selling.
- Downward: the Discord community going quiet or the payout channel stalling, the Facebook page stopping, or the support desk moving to templates only.
- Downward: a regulator warning list entry naming tx3funding.com or any of its four entity names, or checkout narrowing to crypto only.
Evidence ledger
Every finding behind the verdict, with its source.
- Against
E1The Terms of Use are headed TX3 Funding FZCO and governed by the laws of Dubai, while the same page's company details name TX3 Funding LLC in Delaware and TX3 Funding Global Ltd in Saint Lucia. A trader cannot tell which entity owes them money.
StrongTX3 Funding Terms of Use - Against
E2Clause 14 lets the firm rewrite the terms at any time by posting a revision, with continued use counting as acceptance, and no notice period or appeal.
- Against
E3A trader published the firm's own reply stating that because a payout had already been received, that funded account would be breached under the migration terms and the second capped at a 2 percent payout, citing accounts 10905 and 12659.
- Against
E4A time clustered set of August 2026 reports from Italy, France, Britain, the Netherlands, the United States and Indonesia describing the same failure: payouts refused or accounts breached at the moment of withdrawal, including 3,600 dollars refused with no explanation.
- Against
E5A trader reported the consistency score being reduced to 25 percent mid account, a resulting 17,000 dollar profit requirement that took six months to meet, and then refusal on grounds of reverse trading.
- In favour
E6Dated independent reports of completed payouts between January and June 2026, including a trader reporting two completed payments on 17 June 2026 and others reporting payouts delivered in April and May 2026.
- In favour
E7A trader described an account seized over a 3 percent rule error that the risk team reviewed and returned, evidencing a functioning appeal route rather than a blanket refusal policy.
- In favour
E8The official Discord server TX3 Group shows 49,659 members with 1,268 online, indicating an operating firm with an active community rather than an abandoned storefront.
- Against
E9The official video channel has 24,200 subscribers and 523 videos but has not uploaded in nine months, and the TikTok account linked in the site footer no longer exists. Marketing cadence has wound down while the storefront keeps selling.
- Against
E10The site advertises being backed by a True ECN broker with trades going straight to liquidity providers, while the Terms state all trading is simulated and no live trades are executed, cleared or settled for users.
Official channels
Official accounts and the captures we archived.
Official channels
Audience size and the latest post we could see, captured on the review date. A prop firm usually goes quiet before it stops paying, so an inactive channel is worth noticing.
What we captured
Screenshots taken by WIKILIX on the review date. Pages change; these do not.
Questions about TX3 Funding
The questions traders actually ask about this firm.
Yes, for some traders. Independent dated reports confirm completed payouts through roughly June 2026. However, from August 2026 multiple traders in different countries reported payouts refused at the point of withdrawal, several after their accounts were declared breached under rules introduced after they had qualified.
In mid 2026 the firm changed the terms of its Flex accounts and applied the change to existing funded traders. Traders reported that accounts which had already received a payout were declared breached, that remaining accounts were capped at a 2 percent payout, and that some funded traders were sent back to the evaluation stage.
You do not deposit trading capital, so only the evaluation fee leaves your pocket. The risk is to profits you earn but are not paid. Liability is capped at the fees you paid in the previous twelve months, so a refused five figure payout is not realistically recoverable.
It states plainly that it is not registered with any financial regulator, which is the ordinary and expected position for a prop firm selling simulated evaluations. Its named sister broker, TX3 Markets, does hold a South African FSCA authorisation and a Comoros licence, but that broker's status does not extend to your evaluation account.
That is genuinely unclear. The Terms are headed TX3 Funding FZCO and governed by the laws of Dubai, while the same page names TX3 Funding LLC in Delaware and TX3 Funding Global Ltd in Saint Lucia, and the Facebook page names Top Tier Trader LLC. Ask support in writing before buying.
Yes. TopTier Trader rebranded to TX3 Funding on 25 September 2025. The founders are the same, the old domain now carries TX3 branding, the video back catalogue is TopTier branded, and the official Facebook page still states that Top Tier Trader LLC is responsible for it. The predecessor did not collapse, it continued as this brand.
Yes. The Terms state the firm may update them at any time by posting a revised version, and that continued use counts as acceptance. There is no notice period and no appeal process written into the document. Traders have documented this being applied to live funded accounts.
The Terms state all trading is simulated with virtual funds and that no live trades are executed for users. The marketing separately describes a True ECN broker sending orders to liquidity providers and a stage where traders graduate to live capital. Those two statements do not agree, and the Terms are the binding document.
Partly. A 50 percent threshold is published for 1 Phase accounts and Flex accounts are stated to have none, which is better disclosure than many competitors. Pro Funded accounts define it only as based on account size, and at least one trader reported the threshold being tightened to 25 percent against an account already in progress.
Yes. The storefront is selling, the Discord community has close to 50,000 members with over a thousand online, and the firm replies publicly to criticism. Marketing has wound down though: the video channel has not posted in nine months and the TikTok account linked from the site no longer exists.
What we would do
What we would do with our own money.
Treat this as a firm that may pay you and may change the rules first. Size your risk to the evaluation fee, not to the profit you hope to withdraw.
- Do not commit money you would be upset to lose. The realistic worst case is losing the fee and any unpaid profit, with recovery capped at the fees you paid.
- Take a small account first and run one full payout cycle end to end before scaling. Do not build a large balance before you have seen money arrive.
- Withdraw early and often. The evidence shows risk concentrates in large accumulated balances, not in small frequent payouts.
- Screenshot the rules that apply on the day you buy, including consistency threshold, drawdown and payout cadence. The amendment clause means today's rules are not guaranteed to be tomorrow's.
- Ask support in writing, before buying, which entity your contract is with and whether a separate Customer Agreement applies. The public Terms say that agreement overrides them.
- Avoid anything that could be labelled copy trading or reverse trading, including trading similar setups at another firm, since that specific label appears repeatedly in refusals.
- If you are inside a passed account now, request a payout rather than continuing to build the balance.