Three regulators issued new guidance on the prop trading sector in the week of September 10-17, 2026, while verified on-chain payout data from Payout Junction gave the industry its clearest week-by-week performance snapshot yet. For traders currently in a funded account or mid-challenge, the regulatory moves matter in concrete ways: they shape which marketing claims firms can make, how challenge fees may be treated legally, and how transparent a firm must be about the simulated nature of its environment.
Below is a factual summary of each development, what it changes for traders, and what operational updates emerged from individual firms this week.
ESMA Raises MiFID II Flag on Challenge Fees
On September 10, 2026, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published a joint statement with national competent authorities clarifying that EU-targeting prop firms may fall under MiFID II ancillary services provisions where challenge fees are treated as investment-service compensation, according to track360.io.
This is a meaningful shift in regulatory framing. Most challenge-based prop firms have operated on the premise that selling a trading challenge is not a regulated financial service: it is a skills assessment. If national regulators in the EU begin applying MiFID II ancillary-service logic to challenge fees, firms targeting European retail traders could face authorisation requirements they currently do not hold.
What it means for EU-based traders in a challenge
No immediate rule changes have been announced. The ESMA statement is a clarification, not an enforcement order. However, traders based in EU member states should monitor whether their prop firm holds any relevant local authorisation or discloses its regulatory status clearly. Firms that cannot demonstrate compliance may come under national regulator scrutiny in the months ahead. Understanding the evaluation framework before committing capital is more important than ever; a guide to passing a prop firm challenge covers what to look for beyond profit targets, including firm stability signals.
ASIC Issues Its First Formal Prop Firm Guidance
On September 15, 2026, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) released its first formal guidance specifically addressing the prop firm sector, according to track360.io. ASIC clarified that simulated-trading challenges do not constitute financial services under the Corporations Act. However, the guidance adds that marketing must be explicit about the simulated nature of trading environments, and that existing CFD product-intervention order affiliate rules apply wherever prop firms market alongside live CFD products.
Australia has been one of the larger retail prop trading markets in the Asia-Pacific region. This guidance does not shut firms out of the Australian market, but it closes a grey area that some firms used to avoid clear simulation disclosures. Australian traders can use ASIC guidance as a practical checklist: if a firm marketing to you does not clearly label its environment as simulated, it is already outside the standards ASIC expects.
FCA Reiterates Marketing Standards for UK-Targeting Firms
Earlier in the month, on September 5, 2026, the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) updated its guidance on prop firm marketing claims, according to track360.io. The FCA reiterated that firms targeting UK audiences must not claim to deliver consistent returns or reference specific trader outcomes without prominent risk disclosure. Marketing aimed at retail audiences must also include a clear statement distinguishing simulated trading from live trading.
The FCA position is not new in principle, but the updated guidance tightens expectations for affiliate marketing and testimonial-based content, which has been a primary acquisition channel for challenge-based firms. Traders in the UK who encounter marketing that omits simulation disclosures now have clear grounds to flag it directly to the FCA.
Don't want to grind through the challenge yourself? Fast Funded gets you a funded account in 5-6 days: you only pay after we pass.
September Payout Data: Over $26 Million Verified On-Chain
Payout Junction, which tracks blockchain-verified prop firm payouts, reported that firms had settled $26,268,791 across 16,998 on-chain payouts so far in September 2026, as of September 9, 2026. The median payout stood at $1,125 and the average at $1,545, with 38 firms contributing verified payments. Tradeify Futures led the monthly totals with $9,792,346 across 5,936 verified payouts, according to Payout Junction.
For the specific week of September 7-13, 2026, Payout Junction recorded $6,026,408 across 3,975 on-chain payouts from 36 firms, with Tradeify Futures again leading that week at $1,969,202 across 1,129 payouts. The weekly median was $1,093 and the weekly average $1,516, according to Payout Junction weekly data.
These figures cover only blockchain-verified payouts and may not represent a firm's total payout volume. The on-chain verification method, however, allows third-party confirmation of settlement rather than relying on firm self-reporting, which has historically been a weak point for transparency in the industry. Past performance data on payouts does not guarantee future results at any individual firm.
Why payout verification matters mid-challenge
For a trader currently working through a funded account, the availability of verified third-party payout data provides a meaningful due-diligence tool. Firms with consistent, verifiable on-chain payouts across multiple months create a stronger credibility signal than those relying solely on self-reported testimonials. Traders preparing to request their first withdrawal should verify their firm appears in a current verified payout tracker before submitting, and should keep timestamped records of all trades as documentation in the event of any dispute.
Phidias Propfirm: Payment Systems Fully Restored
According to PropScorer's news feed, Phidias Propfirm announced that all payment systems are back online and the compliance process has been approved, making its infrastructure fully operational again. The firm noted that cryptocurrency payments via Confirmo were never interrupted during the downtime period. Express to Live accounts for NinjaTrader and Tradovate are expected to follow soon.
Traders with Phidias accounts who were waiting on payout processing during the system downtime should now be able to proceed with withdrawal requests. If you had a pending request during the outage, it is worth confirming current status directly with Phidias support before assuming automatic processing.
What Funded Traders Should Do This Week
The regulatory activity across ESMA, ASIC, and the FCA this week follows a broader pattern of global regulators tightening expectations around prop firm marketing, fee transparency, and disclosure. None of these actions are immediate enforcement events, but they set the trajectory. The practical steps for traders are:
- Check your firm's disclosure language: Does it clearly state that all trading is simulated? Does it avoid claims of consistent returns?
- Verify your firm in a payout tracker: Payout Junction's blockchain-verified data provides a baseline for comparing firms by actual settlement volume.
- Understand your tax position: Regulatory attention on prop firm fee classification may have downstream effects on how your jurisdiction treats payouts. Consult a qualified tax professional about your specific situation.
- Keep documentation: Regardless of firm, maintain timestamped trade records and screenshots of payout requests, particularly if you are approaching your first withdrawal.
Traders who want to shorten their time in evaluation while staying within all firm rules can review strategies for structured challenge planning in this guide on getting funded efficiently within a structured timeline. AI-assisted tools for trade analysis and rule compliance tracking are also increasingly used by challenge traders to avoid preventable violations; an overview of available options is at AI trading tools for prop firm traders.
The week ahead is likely to see further regulatory commentary, particularly as the ESMA position percolates through national competent authority interpretations in individual EU member states. Traders should bookmark official regulator channels and watch firm communications closely for any policy responses.