Sourced directly from Eleonex's own Terms of Use, section 1 (Instant Funding).
News trading has no restriction at all here, unlike every evaluation-based product
Ignite's own Terms are explicit: "News trading is fully permitted without any time-based restrictions." Every Pulse and Forge product restricts news trading once funded (either an outright ban in a 6-minute window, or a 2-minute minimum hold), Ignite doesn't carry that restriction at any point, since there's no separate funded phase to trigger it. Worth noting since it cuts against the instinct that instant-funded products usually come with tighter strings attached, not looser ones.
Ignite's own Terms are explicit: "News trading is fully permitted without any time-based restrictions." Every Pulse and Forge product restricts news trading once funded (either an outright ban in a 6-minute window, or a 2-minute minimum hold), Ignite doesn't carry that restriction at any point, since there's no separate funded phase to trigger it. Worth noting since it cuts against the instinct that instant-funded products usually come with tighter strings attached, not looser ones.
No formal profit target, but two separate rules quietly add up to one: 2.5%, and it recurs every cycle
Ignite doesn't publish a profit target, but two rules combine into a real one. The minimum trading days requirement needs 5 separate days each showing at least 0.5% profit within a rolling 30-day cycle, a floor of 2.5% if those days land at exactly the minimum. Separately, the Reward Protection Buffer locks an amount equal to 2% of the initial balance after any reward request, never withdrawable. The 2.5% day-count floor is the more binding of the two, and since it already clears the 2% buffer requirement, 2.5% is the real distance to a first payout, not the 2% the buffer alone would suggest. Neither rule is a one-time thing either, both reapply every subsequent cycle, so the 2.5% floor isn't just an entry cost, it recurs.
Ignite doesn't publish a profit target, but two rules combine into a real one. The minimum trading days requirement needs 5 separate days each showing at least 0.5% profit within a rolling 30-day cycle, a floor of 2.5% if those days land at exactly the minimum. Separately, the Reward Protection Buffer locks an amount equal to 2% of the initial balance after any reward request, never withdrawable. The 2.5% day-count floor is the more binding of the two, and since it already clears the 2% buffer requirement, 2.5% is the real distance to a first payout, not the 2% the buffer alone would suggest. Neither rule is a one-time thing either, both reapply every subsequent cycle, so the 2.5% floor isn't just an entry cost, it recurs.
20% consistency and the 5-day minimum aren't two separate hurdles, they're the same constraint enforced twice
A 20% consistency cap has its own built-in day-count floor: no single day can be worth more than 20% of total profit, so mathematically at least 100 ÷ 20 = 5 profitable days are needed before any single day could even theoretically clear the cap . That's exactly the 5-day minimum trading days requirement above, not a coincidence stacked on top, the same number showing up twice. Run the math at the 2.5% floor (5 days at exactly 0.5% each): each day is 0.5% of a 2.5% total, which is precisely 20%, the maximum the consistency rule allows. There is zero wiggle room at that floor, every qualifying day has to land at almost exactly 0.5%. Overshooting isn't a breach, consistency rules typically just require the total to grow until the outlier day is back within ratio, meaning a bigger day just costs a day or two more of trading before a reward can be requested, not the account. Room opens up once total profit climbs past 2.5% anyway, at 5% total profit for example, a single day could be worth up to 1% (still 20% of 5%) while the other four only need to clear the 0.5% floor. Consistency alone isn't a problem, 20% is a normally loose ceiling. The minimum-days rule alone isn't a problem either. Together, right at the minimum viable pass, they force an unusually rigid trading pattern, five days landing at almost exactly the same size, rather than any real risk to the account itself.
A 20% consistency cap has its own built-in day-count floor: no single day can be worth more than 20% of total profit, so mathematically at least 100 ÷ 20 = 5 profitable days are needed before any single day could even theoretically clear the cap . That's exactly the 5-day minimum trading days requirement above, not a coincidence stacked on top, the same number showing up twice. Run the math at the 2.5% floor (5 days at exactly 0.5% each): each day is 0.5% of a 2.5% total, which is precisely 20%, the maximum the consistency rule allows. There is zero wiggle room at that floor, every qualifying day has to land at almost exactly 0.5%. Overshooting isn't a breach, consistency rules typically just require the total to grow until the outlier day is back within ratio, meaning a bigger day just costs a day or two more of trading before a reward can be requested, not the account. Room opens up once total profit climbs past 2.5% anyway, at 5% total profit for example, a single day could be worth up to 1% (still 20% of 5%) while the other four only need to clear the 0.5% floor. Consistency alone isn't a problem, 20% is a normally loose ceiling. The minimum-days rule alone isn't a problem either. Together, right at the minimum viable pass, they force an unusually rigid trading pattern, five days landing at almost exactly the same size, rather than any real risk to the account itself.
The trailing drawdown locks permanently on first payout, and the fixed $100 offset quietly punishes small accounts
Confirmed directly by support: once you request your first payout, the trailing max drawdown stops moving and locks permanently at your starting balance plus $100, regardless of how much the account grows afterward, and that $100 is a flat dollar figure, support confirmed it "is fixed and applies regardless of the account size." Support also confirmed the payout amount itself is flexible, you choose how much to withdraw. Run both confirmed numbers through the math and the size of your account changes everything. On a $100,000 account: 5% profit, take the maximum payout allowed under the Reward Protection Buffer rule, and you're left with a comfortable 1.9% of headroom (balance $102,000 against a locked floor of $100,100). Run the identical scenario, same 5% profit, same maximum payout, on a $5,000 account: profit is $250, the 2% buffer locks $100 of it, leaving $150 eligible, balance after payout is $5,100, and the trailing lock is now fixed at $5,000 + $100 = $5,100 too. Headroom: exactly zero. The account isn't breached, but it's sitting one tick away from being breached the moment the lock takes effect, purely because a flat $100 offset means something completely different on a $5K account than it does on a $100K one. We asked support directly whether they see this as a problem for smaller accounts; no response yet.
Confirmed directly by support: once you request your first payout, the trailing max drawdown stops moving and locks permanently at your starting balance plus $100, regardless of how much the account grows afterward, and that $100 is a flat dollar figure, support confirmed it "is fixed and applies regardless of the account size." Support also confirmed the payout amount itself is flexible, you choose how much to withdraw. Run both confirmed numbers through the math and the size of your account changes everything. On a $100,000 account: 5% profit, take the maximum payout allowed under the Reward Protection Buffer rule, and you're left with a comfortable 1.9% of headroom (balance $102,000 against a locked floor of $100,100). Run the identical scenario, same 5% profit, same maximum payout, on a $5,000 account: profit is $250, the 2% buffer locks $100 of it, leaving $150 eligible, balance after payout is $5,100, and the trailing lock is now fixed at $5,000 + $100 = $5,100 too. Headroom: exactly zero. The account isn't breached, but it's sitting one tick away from being breached the moment the lock takes effect, purely because a flat $100 offset means something completely different on a $5K account than it does on a $100K one. We asked support directly whether they see this as a problem for smaller accounts; no response yet.
Same firm-wide issues apply
The firm overview covers what applies regardless of which model you pick: the largely undocumented payout process, the discretionary scaling review, and the copy-trading scope spread across three documents. Read it once rather than per product.
The firm overview covers what applies regardless of which model you pick: the largely undocumented payout process, the discretionary scaling review, and the copy-trading scope spread across three documents. Read it once rather than per product.
