Funded Trading Plus — 2-Step Classic — Verification Record
2-Step Classic · 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 Funded Trading Plus — 2-Step Classic in the simulator — freeDated source-check records
- Confirmed · sources disagree on 0 field(s)
2-Step Classic · Two independent readers, each working blind to the other’s output and to the stored value
USD 10,000 · USD 100,000 · USD 25,000 · USD 50,000 · recorded field scope; not a whole-plan verification
Field-by-field: 8 confirmed · 5 preserved for the record (13 fields touched this pass).
Two blind independent first-party readers agree on every headline number across all four covered sizes ($10,000/$25,000/$50,000/$100,000): 7% profit target both steps, 4% daily drawdown (prior-day closed-balance basis), 8% static max drawdown fixed to the initial balance (per-size scaling-table rows quoted directly, not arithmetic), 35% consistency rule enforced on both evaluation steps (soft/blocking -- gates passing and payout, not an automatic target-raise), min trading days effectively 0 (unstated), one-time pricing, 80% starting profit split. DISAGREE, RESOLVED: (a) daily_loss.includes_unrealized -- reader A sourced true from FTP's generic Balance-Based Daily Drawdown mechanic article (explicitly stated to govern 2-Step Classic's product category), reader B asserted false with no quote; modelled true per the assume-conservative-when-genuinely-split convention, entered as an ambiguities[] set. (b) daily_loss.reset_time_utc -- 23:59 "server time" (product page) vs 16:59 EST / 21:59 UTC (generic mechanic article); this is the IDENTICAL unresolved conflict already logged on the sibling 1-Step Express product (2026-07-22 recheck) and modelled the same way here (headline 21:59, ambiguities[] set) for cross-product consistency. (c) max_drawdown.basis -- resolved using the firm's OWN account-spec-table label "(Static Balance Based)", captured independently by both readers at the $100,000 size and applied product-wide since the mechanic name does not vary by size; mapped to balance_closed_trade / includes_unrealized:false, NOT the equity-based reading either reader's daily-loss quote might suggest by analogy (that quote is scoped to the separate daily-loss mechanic article). Recorded 'derived', not 'sourced' -- this field is reconciliation-blind across the whole corpus, and this golden vector does not discriminate it either. (d) min_trading_days -- reader A reported 0, reader B reported null; both describe the same absence of a stated minimum (not two competing minimums), resolved to 0 per this corpus's standing convention (matches Topstep's and FTP 1-Step Express's own precedent for an unstated minimum) -- NOT modelled as an ambiguities[] set since null is not a legal engine value. (e) pricing.model -- reader A returned null (no finding), reader B inferred one_time from the absence of reset/renewal terms; resolved to one_time (derived, not sourced) as one reader declining to assert, not a genuine competing value. NOT ENTERED (informational only, left null pending a src/app/js/60_commerce.js wiring pass, matching rules/city-traders-imperium/2500.json's identical precedent): pricing.initial_fee -- reader B sourced clean per-size LIST prices ("$89.00 USD" 10K / "$169.00 USD" 25K / "$319.00 USD" 50K / "$549.00 USD" 100K, before promo codes such as SIZE20) from https://www.fundedtradingplus.com/prop-trading-challenges/two-step?size=<n>. OUT OF SCHEMA SCOPE (documented_omissions, not ambiguities): the 50% FT+ Trader (post-funding) consistency gate, the unstated on_breach for the 4% daily limit, and the product's separate 3% Symbol Loss Limit / 30-day inactivity hard-breach rules. Scope note: only rules/funded-trading-plus-2step/ was written this run -- the sibling rules/funded-trading-plus/ (1-Step Express) files were read for cross-product consistency but not modified, and this addition has not yet been run through tools/corpus-pipeline.js or recorded in docs/feature1/CORPUS_SOURCING.md / FIRM_CHECK_LOG.md.
payout profit split pct: confirmed consistency: confirmed daily loss amount basis: confirmed daily loss amount pct: confirmed daily loss includes unrealized: disagree_resolved daily loss reset time utc: disagree_resolved max drawdown amount pct: confirmed max drawdown anchor: confirmed max drawdown basis: disagree_resolved max drawdown type: confirmed min trading days: disagree_resolved profit target pct: confirmed pricing model: disagree_resolvedNo 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://help.fundedtradingplus.com/2-step-classic-program-information/
https://help.fundedtradingplus.com/consistency-rule/
https://www.fundedtradingplus.com/prop-trading-challenges/two-step
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.
2026-07-31 · earlier grouped record
What the rules say now
profit target pct (same across all modelled sizes)
"This program comes with a 7% profit target on both phases" (product-wide statement; both readers independently confirm 7% applies uniformly at $10,000/$25,000/$50,000/$100,000).retrieved sourced
min trading days (same across all modelled sizes)
(no minimum-trading-days figure is stated on the 2-Step Classic program page or the consistency-rule article by either reader; see reasoning)retrieved derived
daily loss amount pct (same across all modelled sizes)
"a daily drawdown limit of 4% for both the first and second phases/steps of the challenge. The daily drawdown (Daily Simulated Loss) is calculated from your closed balance of the prior trading day, when it resets at 23:59 server time, every day."retrieved sourced
max drawdown amount pct (same across all modelled sizes)
Per-size scaling-reference table row: "$10,000 | $2,000 | $12,000 | $800 | $9,200" (columns: Starting Balance | Profit Required To Scale | Balance Required For Next Level | 8% Static Drawdown Amount | Static Drawdown Breach Balance). Also: "The 2-Step Classic Program is a Static Drawdown program, meaning the maximum loss limit... is fixed based on your initial starting balance... not affected by any simulated profits or gains"; "a static max drawdown of 8%, on both phases."retrieved sourced
max drawdown type (same across all modelled sizes)
"The 2-Step Classic Program is a Static Drawdown program, meaning the maximum loss limit... is fixed based on your initial starting balance... not affected by any simulated profits or gains... does not adjust with account highs or new closed balance peaks." Unanimous between both readers at every size.retrieved sourced
max drawdown basis (same across all modelled sizes)
Firm's own account-spec-table label: "Maximum Loss (Static Balance Based) 8%" / "Maximum Drawdown (Static Balance Based) 8%" (both readers independently captured this exact label at the $100,000 size; the mechanic name is product-wide, not size-specific).retrieved derived
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 "does not adjust" language instead.
retrieved derivedNo directly quotable clause for this figure — PropSurvival’s corpus works it out from maximum drawdown type=static and the anchor quote's "does not adjust" language instead.
retrieved derivedNo directly quotable clause for this figure — PropSurvival’s corpus works it out from maximum drawdown type=static and the anchor quote's "does not adjust" language instead.
retrieved derivedNo directly quotable clause for this figure — PropSurvival’s corpus works it out from maximum drawdown type=static and the anchor quote's "does not adjust" language instead.
retrieved derivedconsistency (same across all modelled sizes)
"The 2-Step Classic Program has a Consistency Rule of 35% in both challenge phases/steps, and 50% on the FT+ Trader Simulated live account." ... "no single trading day's net profit (from closed positions only) can represent more than 35% of the total net profit." ... "you will not pass your challenge, or be able to request a payout, until the consistency objectives are met."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 Funded Trading Plus — 2-Step Classic.