Lux Trading Firm — Verification Record
1-Step Evaluation · 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 Lux Trading Firm in the simulator — freeDated source-check records
- Documented absent
1-Step Evaluation (flagship evaluation challenge; distinct from Lux's separate 'Instant Funding'/INSTA no-evaluation product and its separate 'Prediction Markets' product, neither modelled here) · First party single pass
USD 100,000 · USD 1,000,000 · USD 400,000 · recorded field scope; not a whole-plan verification
Field-by-field: 2 noted (2 fields touched this pass).
PKG-E payout/reset-fee provenance backfill. Lux confirms on-demand payouts (no fixed cycle) and publishes reset fees only in GBP (100K £139 / 400K £299 / 1M £699); left both null (currency mismatch + on-demand) rather than invent a USD figure or a cycle number.
payout cycle days: documented-absent pricing reset price after breach: documented-absentNo 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://luxtradingfirm.com/rules-of-engagement-3/ - Confirmed, no changes
1-Step Evaluation (flagship evaluation challenge; distinct from Lux's separate 'Instant Funding'/INSTA no-evaluation product and its separate 'Prediction Markets' product, neither modelled here) · Two independent readers, each working blind to the other’s output and to the stored value
USD 400,000 · recorded field scope; not a whole-plan verification
Field-by-field: 6 confirmed · 2 noted (8 fields touched this pass).
Two independent blind first-party readers reached the current 1-Step Evaluation rules page (rules-of-engagement-3) plus its sibling product/pricing page (1-step-evaluation). Both agree on every material number for this size: 12% / $48,000 profit target; 6% / $24,000 static (non-trailing) drawdown anchored on the starting balance, floor $376,000; a 5%-of-Remaining-Risk-Capital per-trade consistency rule (RRC = balance - drawdown limit); no daily loss limit stated anywhere; no stated minimum trading days; £449 one-time evaluation fee, 100% refunded on passing; 80% funded-stage profit split. The merge tool flagged 5 sub-fields as agree:false (profit_target_quote, max_drawdown_anchor, max_drawdown_quote, consistency_enforced_at, consistency_quote); on inspection every one is a transcription/paraphrase difference of the identical fact (e.g. a label prefix, 'does not rise' vs 'does not move up'), not a genuine second reading — so none were entered in ambiguities[], per the template's rule that corroborating quotes belong in provenance.reasoning, not ambiguities[]. THIRD source (trading-rules/, the site's own 'Old Trading Rules' page) was read by neither pass as authoritative for this product: it describes a different, TRAILING 'Relative Drawdown' mechanic on a different legacy 50K/200K/1MM ladder, contradicting this page's explicit STATIC drawdown; cited only as a superseded worked-example source at rules/lux-trading-firm/hand-derived/, never used to source a live field here.
payout profit split pct: confirmed consistency: confirmed daily loss amount pct: confirmed (absence) max drawdown amount pct: confirmed max drawdown type: confirmed min trading days: confirmed (absence) 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://luxtradingfirm.com/rules-of-engagement-3/
https://luxtradingfirm.com/1-step-evaluation/
https://luxtradingfirm.com/trading-rules/ - Confirmed, no changes
1-Step Evaluation (flagship evaluation challenge; distinct from Lux's separate 'Instant Funding'/INSTA no-evaluation product and its separate 'Prediction Markets' product, neither modelled here) · Two independent readers, each working blind to the other’s output and to the stored value
USD 1,000,000 · recorded field scope; not a whole-plan verification
Field-by-field: 6 confirmed · 2 noted (8 fields touched this pass).
Two independent blind first-party readers reached the current 1-Step Evaluation rules page (rules-of-engagement-3) plus its sibling product/pricing page (1-step-evaluation). Both agree on every material number for this size: 15% / $150,000 profit target; 6% / $60,000 static (non-trailing) drawdown anchored on the starting balance, floor $940,000; a 5%-of-Remaining-Risk-Capital per-trade consistency rule (RRC = balance - drawdown limit); no daily loss limit stated anywhere; no stated minimum trading days; £999 one-time evaluation fee (labeled 'MOST POPULAR!'), 100% refunded on passing; 80% funded-stage profit split. The merge tool flagged 5 sub-fields as agree:false (profit_target_quote, max_drawdown_anchor, max_drawdown_quote, consistency_enforced_at, consistency_quote); on inspection every one is a transcription/paraphrase difference of the identical fact (e.g. a label prefix, 'does not rise' vs 'does not move up'), not a genuine second reading — so none were entered in ambiguities[], per the template's rule that corroborating quotes belong in provenance.reasoning, not ambiguities[]. THIRD source (trading-rules/, the site's own 'Old Trading Rules' page) was read by neither pass as authoritative for this product: it describes a different, TRAILING 'Relative Drawdown' mechanic on a different legacy 50K/200K/1MM ladder, contradicting this page's explicit STATIC drawdown; cited only as a superseded worked-example source at rules/lux-trading-firm/hand-derived/, never used to source a live field here.
payout profit split pct: confirmed consistency: confirmed daily loss amount pct: confirmed (absence) max drawdown amount pct: confirmed max drawdown type: confirmed min trading days: confirmed (absence) 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://luxtradingfirm.com/rules-of-engagement-3/
https://luxtradingfirm.com/1-step-evaluation/
https://luxtradingfirm.com/trading-rules/ - Confirmed, no changes
1-Step Evaluation (flagship evaluation challenge; distinct from Lux's separate 'Instant Funding'/INSTA no-evaluation product and its separate 'Prediction Markets' product, neither modelled here) · Two independent readers, each working blind to the other’s output and to the stored value
USD 100,000 · recorded field scope; not a whole-plan verification
Field-by-field: 6 confirmed · 2 noted (8 fields touched this pass).
Two independent blind first-party readers reached the current 1-Step Evaluation rules page (rules-of-engagement-3) plus its sibling product/pricing page (1-step-evaluation). Both agree on every material number for this size: 10% / $10,000 profit target; 6% / $6,000 static (non-trailing) drawdown anchored on the starting balance, floor $94,000; a 5%-of-Remaining-Risk-Capital per-trade consistency rule (RRC = balance - drawdown limit); no daily loss limit stated anywhere; no stated minimum trading days; £199 one-time evaluation fee, 100% refunded on passing; 80% funded-stage profit split. The merge tool flagged 5 sub-fields as agree:false (profit_target_quote, max_drawdown_anchor, max_drawdown_quote, consistency_enforced_at, consistency_quote); on inspection every one is a transcription/paraphrase difference of the identical fact (e.g. a trailing period, a label prefix, 'does not rise' vs 'does not move up'), not a genuine second reading — so none were entered in ambiguities[], per the template's rule that corroborating quotes belong in provenance.reasoning, not ambiguities[]. THIRD source (trading-rules/, the site's own 'Old Trading Rules' page) was read by neither pass as authoritative for this product: it describes a different, TRAILING 'Relative Drawdown' mechanic on a different legacy 50K/200K/1MM ladder, contradicting this page's explicit STATIC drawdown; cited only as a superseded worked-example source at rules/lux-trading-firm/hand-derived/, never used to source a live field here.
payout profit split pct: confirmed consistency: confirmed daily loss amount pct: confirmed (absence) max drawdown amount pct: confirmed max drawdown type: confirmed min trading days: confirmed (absence) 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://luxtradingfirm.com/rules-of-engagement-3/
https://luxtradingfirm.com/1-step-evaluation/
https://luxtradingfirm.com/trading-rules/
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.
2026-09-13 · earlier grouped record
2026-07-30 · earlier grouped record
- 1-Step Evaluation (flagship evaluation challenge; distinct from Lux's separate 'Instant Funding'/INSTA no-evaluation product and its separate 'Prediction Markets' product, neither modelled here) · sizes 100000 — inspect this distinct check
- 1-Step Evaluation (flagship evaluation challenge; distinct from Lux's separate 'Instant Funding'/INSTA no-evaluation product and its separate 'Prediction Markets' product, neither modelled here) · sizes 400000 — inspect this distinct check
- 1-Step Evaluation (flagship evaluation challenge; distinct from Lux's separate 'Instant Funding'/INSTA no-evaluation product and its separate 'Prediction Markets' product, neither modelled here) · sizes 1000000 — inspect this distinct check
What the rules say now
profit target pct
Profit target is 10% / $10,000.retrieved sourced
Profit Target: Profit target is 12% / $48,000.retrieved sourced
Profit Target: Profit target is 15% / $150,000.retrieved sourced
min trading days (same across all modelled sizes)
(absence-inferred — see reasoning)retrieved derived
daily loss amount pct (same across all modelled sizes)
(absence-inferred — see reasoning)retrieved derived
max drawdown amount pct (same across all modelled sizes)
All accounts use a 6% static drawdown, meaning your drawdown is fixed at 6% of the starting balance and does not move up as your account grows. ... Maximum loss is 6% / $6,000. Drawdown Limit: Drawdown limit is fixed at $94,000.retrieved sourced
max drawdown type (same across all modelled sizes)
All accounts use a 6% static drawdown, meaning your drawdown is fixed at 6% of the starting balance and does not move up as your account grows. ... Maximum loss is 6% / $6,000. Drawdown Limit: Drawdown limit is fixed at $94,000.retrieved sourced
consistency (same across all modelled sizes)
Lux Trading requires traders to maintain consistent risk allocation across all trades during each stage... Traders must select a fixed percentage of Remaining Risk Capital (RRC) to risk per trade and apply this percentage consistently across all trades during the stage. ... The maximum permissible risk is 5% of RRC. RRC = [Current Balance] - [Drawdown Limit], where the drawdown limit is defined as the starting account balance minus six percent.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 Lux Trading Firm.