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 it's unclear whether the offset scales with account size
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. On a $100,000 account taking the maximum payout allowed under the Reward Protection Buffer rule, that works out to a comfortable 1.9% of headroom immediately after the lock (balance $102,000 against a locked floor of $100,100). What isn't confirmed is whether that "+$100" offset is a flat dollar figure across every Ignite tier or scales with account size, on the smaller 5K/10K/25K tiers a flat $100 offset would eat a meaningfully larger share of the 2% buffer margin, potentially leaving very little or no room at all right after the lock. Also unconfirmed: whether the payout amount itself is flexible (you choose how much to withdraw up to the buffer-allowed maximum) or effectively fixed, which changes where the balance actually sits the moment the floor locks. Both are open questions with support.
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. On a $100,000 account taking the maximum payout allowed under the Reward Protection Buffer rule, that works out to a comfortable 1.9% of headroom immediately after the lock (balance $102,000 against a locked floor of $100,100). What isn't confirmed is whether that "+$100" offset is a flat dollar figure across every Ignite tier or scales with account size, on the smaller 5K/10K/25K tiers a flat $100 offset would eat a meaningfully larger share of the 2% buffer margin, potentially leaving very little or no room at all right after the lock. Also unconfirmed: whether the payout amount itself is flexible (you choose how much to withdraw up to the buffer-allowed maximum) or effectively fixed, which changes where the balance actually sits the moment the floor locks. Both are open questions with support.
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.
