Verdict. The Futures Desk is one of very few futures prop firms that says it moves passers off simulation onto real brokerage accounts at NFA-regulated FCMs, and its economics — $0 activation, $2.40 per NQ round turn, uncapped daily payouts after six days — beat the sector norm. It suits a disciplined futures scalper who already holds an account there, and nobody else: Topstep bought the firm on 1 April 2026 and the site now sells nothing. The caveat is that the FCM promise lives in marketing, not the contract.
Key terms, as published
Read from thefuturesdesk.com and its Terms & Conditions, effective 1 April 2026, on 20 September 2026.
- Activation fee: “$0 after passing”, plus a first month of professional market data the firm values at “$140/mo”.
- Commissions: “NQ/ES round-trip $2.40 all-in”, or “NQ $1.20 all-in per side”, which the firm attributes to holding a “CME Rule 106.R Electronic Corporate Membership”.
- Account sizes: not published. No figure appears on the homepage, in the knowledge base or in the terms.
- Profit split: not published. The phrase does not appear anywhere on the public site.
- Profit target and drawdown: not published in dollars. A marketing table lists the drawdown type only, as “Static or EOD”.
- Minimum trading days to an uncapped payout: “six days” per the FAQ; the page headline above it says “as few as five days”.
- Payout frequency: daily, Monday to Friday, “usually… the same day if requested prior to 11AM”, paid through Riseworks. “No consistency or minimum days between payouts.”
- Accounts per trader: “a max of 2”.
- Disclosed pass rate: “The Assessment Desk® evaluation program has a historically low candidate pass rate, estimated at 25%.”
The FCM question, and where the answer is not
Almost every futures prop firm keeps its traders in simulation permanently. The Futures Desk says it does not, and that claim is the reason to look at it at all. Its FAQ is unambiguous: “During the assessment and during the small time period in the sim-brokerage, all trading is simulated but is based on live market conditions. After that, yes, all traders move to one of our fully regulated live brokerage accounts where all capital is real.” Asked whether it is a broker: “No, we are not a broker. But we use ONLY regulated FCMs who pass stringent compliance by the NFA and CFTC (Dorman/Plus500).”
Dorman Trading is a real, CFTC-registered futures commission merchant, and a consequential one — Miami International Holdings bought it in October 2022 to give the MIAX exchange group its own clearing arm. Plus500 is a listed broker. Neither is invented.
The problem is where those names appear: in an FAQ accordion on a marketing page, and not in the document that governs the relationship. A full-text search of the 165,729-character Terms & Conditions returns zero occurrences of “Dorman”, zero of “Plus500”, zero of “profit split”, zero of “Riseworks”, zero of “power of attorney” — and zero of the word “payout”. The definitions clause defines a “Simulated Account” as one in which “trades… are not in live markets and don’t involve real profits or losses”, and defines no live, funded or brokerage account at all. The services the contract covers are “The Intern Desk, Assessment Desk, or other services offered by an affiliate” — all of them evaluations.
So the answer is precise. The FCMs are named and they are genuine; the transition to their capital is undocumented. Nothing a buyer signs obliges The Futures Desk to open a live sub-account, to use Dorman Trading or Plus500, or to pay anything at all. “Sole discretion” appears 43 times in the terms; “payout” appears none. That asymmetry is the review. It is a softer version of the gap Fidelcrest leaves open by refusing to name the firm that funds you — The Futures Desk at least names its counterparties. It simply does not promise them.
What the payout promise rests on
On paper the payout offer is the sector’s most attractive: daily withdrawals, Monday to Friday, paid the same day before 11am, with no consistency rule and no minimum gap between requests once past the buffer. The firm is also explicit that it will not pay on simulated profits — “we do not allow payouts from simulated funds” — which, if honoured, is a stronger commitment than most competitors make.
What could not be verified: the size of the “buffer” cleared before payouts become uncapped, the profit split applied to them, the profit target and drawdown figures, the account sizes, and the price of the evaluation itself. None is published. The terms point readers to “our dedicated rules page” for “the most up-to-date schedule of Trading Rules and account parameters”; on 20 September 2026 that page returned HTTP 404, as did /pricing, /faq and /risk-disclosure. Only the homepage, knowledge base, terms and privacy policy survive, and the knowledge base index contains nothing but homepage copy.
Nor could any independent, dated payout report be verified. Trustpilot showed a 4.6 TrustScore from 454 reviews on 20 September 2026 — 88% five-star, 3% one-star — but that is not payout evidence, and the firm publishes no audited payout data.
The rules that actually fail traders
Two clauses matter more than the marketing. The first is the discretion to delete results: where the company identifies conduct that, “in its sole discretion”, breaches its Prohibited Conduct policy, it reserves the right to “delete the trading day and all associated profits, restart the account, or close the account”. Prohibited Conduct expressly includes “gambling or exploiting the simulated environment” — terms the firm defines itself.
The second is that the parameters are not fixed. The terms warn that rules “may be subject to periodic adjustments or changes, without prior notice”, and direct traders to a rules page that no longer exists. Fees are not recoverable: if a trader fails, “no refund will be issued”. Set against that, the permissions are unusually broad: microscalping and algorithms are allowed with no minimum hold time, a real differentiator in a sector where hold-time rules routinely void accounts.
How it compares
Ranked on one criterion only: how much of the payout mechanism each firm publishes before you pay. Figures retrieved 20 September 2026.
| The Futures Desk | Topstep (Live Funded) | FuturesElite (Elite) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Account sizes | Not published | $50,000 / $100,000 / $150,000 | $25,000 to $150,000 |
| Activation fee | $0 | None stated | Not published |
| Profit split | Not published | 90/10; 100% of first $10,000 | 90/10 |
| Drawdown | “Static or EOD”; no dollar figures | End-of-day; flat by 3:10pm CT | End-of-day trailing, $1,000 to $4,500 |
| Qualifying days per payout | 6 (FAQ) or 5 (headline) | 5 winning days of $150+ net | 6 days above $100 to $350 |
| Payout cap | Uncapped after an unquantified buffer | Uncapped | 50% of profit, $1,000 to $3,000 |
| Minimum request | Not published | $125 | $500 |
| NQ/ES round turn | $2.40 all-in | Not published on rules page | Not published |
Topstep’s figures come from its own Live Funded Account rules and payout policy; FuturesElite’s from our review of 5 September. On that single criterion The Futures Desk finishes last of the three, despite having the best headline terms. For the price side of the comparison, see our survey of what a $100,000 account costs across 23 firms.
Regulatory posture, and who owns the firm now
The Futures Desk is not a regulated entity. The contracting party is TS TFD Buyer, LLC, “a Delaware limited liability company” — an acquisition vehicle, as the name suggests. Its homepage carries this disclosure: “Topstep Brokerage LLC (‘Topstep Brokerage’), an affiliate of TS TFD Buyer, LLC, is registered with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission as an introducing broker and is a member of the National Futures Association (NFA ID 0567079).”
That registration is real, and NFA BASIC showed no NFA, CFTC, exchange or foreign-regulator actions against Topstep Brokerage on 20 September 2026. But an introducing broker is not an FCM: it introduces business and does not hold customer funds. The affiliate is registered; the prop firm selling the evaluation is not — the same distinction the CFTC drew when it conditioned introducing-broker relief on passivity in Letter 26-25.
The ownership change is on the record. On 1 April 2026, Topstep announced from Chicago that it “has officially acquired The Futures Desk”, with co-founders Josh Schwartzberg and Brian Ford joining the buyer and TFD’s technology folding into TopstepX. Schwartzberg said in the announcement: “We started The Futures Desk to help traders actually learn the craft, not just chase a quick payout. Topstep is the only place that truly shares that obsession.”
The terms were rewritten the same day and carry the fingerprint: “Trading Combine”, Topstep’s own product name, appears twice in The Futures Desk’s contract. Meanwhile the shopfront has been dismantled. The homepage has no pricing, no basket and no registration path — the word “Purchase” does not appear in its HTML — and the only account action is “Sign In”, to a gated members portal. Whatever The Futures Desk was, it is now a run-off book.
Frequently asked questions
Can I still join The Futures Desk?
On the evidence of the public site on 20 September 2026, no. There is no pricing page and no purchase path of any kind; the only action available to a visitor is signing in to an existing account. Topstep, which acquired the firm on 1 April 2026, is directing new traders to its own programmes.
Which FCM holds the money?
The firm names Dorman Trading and Plus500 in its FAQ, and both are genuine regulated brokers. But neither is named in the Terms & Conditions, so there is no contractual commitment to either. Which venue any individual account sits at is not something a trader can verify before paying.
Is the move from simulation to live capital guaranteed?
No. It is promised in marketing and absent from the contract. The terms define a Simulated Account, define no live or funded account, and reserve decisions to the firm’s “sole discretion” 43 times. Treat the transition as discretionary, not as a term of sale.
How many people pass?
The firm discloses an estimated 25% pass rate for the Assessment Desk and states plainly that it does “not recommend it for individuals with limited trading experience”. That disclosure is more candid than most of the sector manages, and it is the number to weigh against the payout terms.
This review is independent editorial analysis and is not financial, investment, or trading advice, and is not an endorsement or solicitation. The Industry Spread has no affiliate or referral relationship with the firms covered. Proprietary trading challenges carry a fee that is generally non-refundable, most participants do not reach a funded account, and funded capital is the firm’s capital, not the trader’s. Terms change frequently — always verify current rules directly with the firm before paying any fee.
Abdelaziz Fathi
Abdelaziz Fathi covers the intersection of forex/CFD brokerage, regulation, liquidity, fintech, and digital assets. With a B.A. in Finance and hands-on industry exposure, Aziz blends analytical rigor with clear storytelling to make complex market structure understandable for traders, brokers, and fintech professionals.
