City Traders Imperium — Verification Record
2-Step Challenge · Our recorded checks and their evidence. A corpus correction does not establish when a firm changed its rules.
Confirmed unchanged
looked · found
Inspect the evidence or run your numbers
Run City Traders Imperium in the simulator — freeDated source-check records
- Confirmed · sources disagree on 0 field(s)
2-Step Challenge · Two independent readers, each working blind to the other’s output and to the stored value
USD 2,500 · recorded field scope; not a whole-plan verification
Field-by-field: 11 confirmed · 2 preserved for the record (13 fields touched this pass).
Both blind passes agree on every headline number for the $2,500 account: 10%/$250 Phase 1 target, 5%/$125 Phase 2 target, 5%/$125 daily drawdown, 10%/$250 max static drawdown, 3 min trading days per phase, no standard consistency rule, one-time pricing, 80% starting profit split. DISAGREE, RESOLVED: (a) daily_loss.amount_basis - CTI's own product/blog text literally says the daily cap is '5% of start-of-day balance' (recalculating), yet a separate line on the same page calls the limits 'fixed dollar amounts that don't move as your account grows'. Reader A flagged this as an unresolved firm self-contradiction; reader B took the recalculating-formula text at face value. Resolved AGAINST both readers' surface reading using CTI's own worked example (drawdown-mechanics page, Scenario C): two consecutive -$4,900 days at the $100,000 scale are BOTH called 'just under daily limit' - which only holds arithmetically if the $5,000 cap stays FIXED (day_start_balance would shrink it to $4,755 after day 1's loss and Day 2 would breach, contradicting CTI's own text). Recorded amount_basis='initial'. NOTE FOR NEXT RECHECK: this is a direct-evidence override, not the conservative default (a recalculating cap would in fact model MORE ruin in a losing streak) - re-verify if CTI republishes a day-2+ worked example that disagrees. (b) daily_loss.on_breach - CTI's drawdown-mechanics FAQ describes the daily-limit consequence as 'cannot open new positions for the remainder of that trading day' (reads as same-day pause), but the SAME page's own Scenario B ends 'challenge terminated', and T&C 13.4 lists MDD breach under contract-termination grounds. Recorded on_breach='fail'. SEPARATE FINDING (not an ambiguity, a documented arithmetic defect in CTI's own published text): Scenario C's cumulative arithmetic does not reconcile - $100,000 - $4,900 - $4,900 - $300 = $89,900, not the $89,700 CTI's own page states after 'a small -$300 loss'. Both figures sit below the $90,000 absolute floor, so the scenario's stated OUTCOME ('Absolute limit breached') is unaffected and was used as-is for the reconciling golden vector (rules/city-traders-imperium/golden/absolute-floor-static-2500.json, computed on the literal per-day figures CTI gives, i.e. reproducing the $89,900 result, not the firm's un-reconciled $89,700 headline). ALSO NOT ENTERED AS AN AMBIGUITY (informational only, left null): pricing.initial_fee - reader A gives an exact one-time fee of $39 for the $2,500 account size (per-size table: $39/$59/$99/$199/$329/$549 at $2.5K/$5K/$10K/$25K/$50K/$100K) plus a 'Reset on Failure 15% Discount', but this corpus's pricing.initial_fee/reset_price_* fields are null across all 76 existing rule files pending a matching resetFees wiring pass in src/app/js/60_commerce.js (outside this file's write scope) - left null for consistency, not for lack of a sourced figure; flagged here so the orchestrator can decide whether to populate it in that follow-up pass.
payout profit split pct: confirmed consistency: confirmed daily loss amount basis: disagree_resolved daily loss amount pct: confirmed daily loss on breach: disagree_resolved max drawdown amount pct: confirmed max drawdown anchor: confirmed max drawdown basis: confirmed max drawdown type: confirmed min trading days: confirmed profit target pct: confirmed profit target pct: confirmed pricing model: confirmedNo prior value is evidenced for this check. This is a record of our research, not a firm rule effective date.
Sources recorded for this check:Link to this check
https://citytradersimperium.com/2-step-challenge/
https://citytradersimperium.com/2-step-drawdown-mechanics/
Earlier record links
These retained links open the complete size and program membership of the earlier grouped record. Each distinct check now has its own link.
2026-07-30 · earlier grouped record
What the rules say now
profit target pct
Phase 1 Profit Target: 10% of starting balance. Table row for $2,500 account: Phase 1 target "$250".retrieved sourced
min trading days
Min Profitable Trading Days / Min Profitable Days (3 per phase)retrieved sourced
daily loss amount pct
Max Daily Drawdown: 5% of start-of-day balance. Table row for $2,500 account: "$125" daily drawdown.retrieved sourced
max drawdown amount pct
Max Static Drawdown: 10% of the initial balance. Table row for $2,500 account: "$250" max drawdown.retrieved sourced
max drawdown type
Max Static Drawdown 10% of the initial balanceretrieved sourced
max drawdown basis
Your drawdown is calculated from account balance, not equity, so an open floating loss never counts against your limit. CTI measures drawdowns on balance, not equity. Only closed trades affect the rules.retrieved sourced
max drawdown locks
No directly quotable clause for this figure — PropSurvival’s corpus works it out from maximum drawdown type=static and the anchor quote's 'doesn't adjust upwards' language instead.
retrieved derivedconsistency
The 2-Step Challenge has no hidden consistency requirements, with clear target and drawdown objectives.retrieved sourced
Rules and their verification status change without notice; the firm's own documentation is always the final authority. This page is independent research, not investment or trading advice, and PropSurvival is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by City Traders Imperium.