Evercrest Funding

I had 10k with them. Trading conditions are good, rules and FAQS are transparent and easy. Upcoming good firm. Support was good.

My experience with Evercast Funding has been good so far. The rules are clear and easy to understand, and the trading conditions are smooth. The dashboard is simple to use, and the support team is helpful. Overall, it has been a positive experience, with only minor improvements needed in response time.

best rules

Passed, earned $50,417 within the rules — terminated on a false Veriff flag, then blocked. They never showed one piece of trading evidence. (Account 102347) I'm posting my experience factually so other traders can judge for themselves. I will update this review if Evercrest engages with the evidence. I'm a trader from Mongolia. I purchased Evercrest challenges (about $3,000 in card payments in May–June 2026), passed, and traded a $200,000 funded account. In June 2026 I earned $50,417.99 in profit over 27 trades across 8 trading days — real trades on XAUUSD, including a losing day of -$3,022 — without breaking a single trading rule. My dashboard showed the account Active and Funded. At payout stage, Evercrest requested manual KYC, saying their payment provider had issues. I provided my national ID, utility bill, and full bank statement, then had a compliance interview. In the interview they raised two points: my utility bill showed another name, and there were proxy-service purchases in my bank statement. I answered both fully and in writing, with documents: – A rental agreement proving the utility bill is in my landlord's name (in Mongolia, utility bills legally show only the property owner's name, never the tenant's). – A government residence certificate from the state registry matching my national ID. – My bank statement showing my monthly rent payments to that same landlord. – Screenshots showing both my devices on Mongolian ISPs in Ulaanbaatar. – An explanation that the proxy purchases were for my web-development work, with named, publicly accessible projects — disclosed by me, unprompted, before any further verification. – An open invitation to check the IP and device logs of my trading account, which would show only my PC and phone in Mongolia. Support then invited me to Veriff for "extra confirmation." I completed it on my personal phone, on my normal mobile connection. Veriff flagged "session traffic proxied" and a timezone mismatch. The cause was simple and provable: my phone's Private DNS was set to an ad-blocking DNS service (dns.adguard.com). My phone's VPN setting reads "None" — I have the screenshot. The name flag was Veriff comparing against the family-name field of a Mongolian ID, which is not how Mongolian names are used; my given name plus father's name matches every document I submitted. As a note: this review is posted under a Trustpilot Verified User badge. Trustpilot verifies identity using Veriff — the same vendor Evercrest used. The same Veriff, checking the same person and the same ID, verified me without issue. What Evercrest's Veriff session flagged was never my identity; it was a network signal caused by my phone's ad-blocking DNS. My identity has never been in question. Within hours I was terminated for "breach of integrity," told I had misled them, removed from their Discord, and my $50,417 payout was refused. I immediately explained the DNS setting with screenshots and offered to redo the Veriff verification under their full supervision — live video call, screen recorded, any browser and settings they choose. Their support replied in writing: "I am not in the position to do this," said their risk team has "massive data sources," and then blocked me in the support chat. To this day, Evercrest has not cited one single piece of evidence from my actual trading account — not one IP address, not one session, not one date — despite my asking repeatedly. Their entire stated case is (1) purchases in my personal bank statement, which I disclosed and explained myself before Veriff, and (2) a Veriff device flag with a documented technical cause that I offered to disprove under their supervision. I sent a formal written appeal with all evidence on July 2, 2026. I was blocked from chat and have received no response. Traders can draw their own conclusions. Mine is that a firm confident in its evidence would show it, and would accept a supervised 15-minute re-verification rather than block the trader. I have preserved every document, screenshot, email, and chat transcript, and I'm glad to share them with anyone reviewing this case, including Evercrest, if they choose to respond. Account 102347. I will update this review the moment Evercrest engages with the actual evidence.

Order

Breach

Breach

Breach

Breach

Breach

Breach

Breach

Breach