There's a New Player in the Prop Firm Game

Just when you thought the prop firm industry couldn't come up with another way to sell traders an account, along come perpetual futures.

And apparently, investors are paying attention.

On October 7, Vest Labs, the company behind Vest Markets, announced a $13 million funding round led by Portal Ventures. The round had closed in July.

According to the company, more than 27,000 traders were using its platform by late September, with many coming from traditional financial markets rather than crypto.

Vest is pitching something different from the traditional futures prop firm model: access to perpetual futures across crypto, stocks, indices, and other markets, with trading hours that extend beyond traditional market sessions. Crypto trades through weekends, while Vest currently pauses its non-crypto markets over part of the weekend.

I recently decided to give Vest a try.

And while I'm still learning the ins and outs of perps, I can definitely see why traders are getting interested.

First, What the Hell Are Perps?

Perpetual futures, commonly called perps, are derivative contracts that let traders speculate on an asset's price without actually owning it.

Unlike traditional futures contracts, perps don't have an expiration date.

They typically use a funding-rate mechanism to help keep contract prices aligned with their underlying markets. Depending on the position and funding rate, traders may pay or receive periodic funding.

And here's where things get interesting.

Some platforms now offer perpetual contracts tied to equities, indices, commodities, and crypto.

That means traders can potentially speculate on something like Nvidia overnight without buying Nvidia shares or dealing with options Greeks.

For someone like me who trades futures and options, that's pretty appealing.

But it's important to understand you're trading a derivative, not the underlying stock.

Prices can differ from the reference asset, especially when traditional markets are closed, and leverage can magnify losses quickly.

What I Liked About My First Perps Prop Account

My first experience with Vest was actually pretty decent.

The slippage wasn't terrible, at least with the position sizes I was trading.

The trading fees, on the other hand, felt a little high.

There's also a learning curve when it comes to position sizing and understanding exactly how much you're risking.

Coming from traditional futures, where I'm accustomed to calculating risk using contracts, points, and ticks, the transition takes some adjustment.

One feature I definitely missed was chart trading.

I want to be able to click a price level on my chart and place a limit order right there.

During my test, I couldn't do that on Vest, and it made execution less convenient.

But there are some things I really like about the model.

Vest advertises same-day account activation after passing an evaluation and the ability to claim eligible rewards on demand, subject to its account rules.

That could be a big deal for traders tired of minimum trading days, consistency requirements, and payout restrictions.

Vest says an eligible profit claim credits a trader's primary account within 24 hours. A separate withdrawal step can then send USDC to a supported crypto wallet.

I haven't personally verified the payout process.

In fact, I failed the account I tested.

So while I can speak to the trading experience, I'm not going to pretend I've tested the withdrawal process or received a payout.

Those payout features are the company's advertised terms, and they shouldn't automatically be assumed to apply to every perps prop firm.

My Biggest Question: Do Instant Accounts Make Sense?

Here's where Vest loses me a little.

One of the instant accounts I looked at cost $200 and provided $200 in maximum drawdown. That was the $5,000 simulated-capital size, not a rule for every Vest account.

That means you're paying $200 to access $200 in loss tolerance, rather than depositing $200 into a personal trading account.

Yes, you get the benefit of trading under a prop-style arrangement, with a simulated capital allocation and the possibility of receiving payouts.

And yes, the rules are attractive.

No evaluation. No consistency requirement. No minimum trading days.

Vest's instant-account offering advertises keeping up to 95% of eligible rewards, meaning the firm's share can be as low as 5%.

But here's my question.

If I'm paying $200 to get $200 in drawdown, why wouldn't I just put that $200 into my own cash trading account and keep 100% of whatever I make?

Obviously, the comparison isn't perfectly apples to apples.

Buying an instant prop account doesn't necessarily expose you to the same risks, access, or buying-power limitations as trading your own money.

But the economics still matter.

A huge simulated account balance looks impressive on a sales page.

What I actually care about is how much room I have to lose before the account is gone.

That's the number traders should be paying attention to.

Vest Says Its Model Is Different

The company is making an interesting argument about how prop firms should operate.

Vest says its business is structured to benefit when traders succeed rather than simply collecting evaluation fees from unsuccessful customers.

In an interview with Fortune, Vest's founders described an evaluation-path model where qualifying traders can keep up to 80% of trading profits. Vest's published account guide says evaluation splits can be 80% or 90%, while its instant-account offer advertises 95% of eligible rewards. Those are different account arrangements.

The company also claims that approximately 26% of its 27,000 traders had received a payout by late September.

Those are encouraging figures if accurate, but they're company-reported statistics, not independently verified payout data.

There's another important distinction.

Vest's published terms describe its instant funded accounts as simulated.

Participants do not directly control live brokerage positions, and Vest may choose whether to execute or hedge the trading ideas it receives.

So the marketing pitch about real-market trading and the legal structure of an individual prop account aren't necessarily the same thing.

That's worth understanding before purchasing anything.

Is This the Next Big Thing?

I think perps have a legitimate shot at becoming a much bigger part of the retail trading world.

The ability to trade beyond regular market hours where supported, access different asset classes, avoid contract expirations, and potentially get paid quickly makes the concept appealing.

But there are still questions.

How competitive are the fees?

How reliable is execution during volatile markets?

How do these firms manage liquidity and risk?

And are traders actually getting better value than they would from traditional futures prop firms or personal accounts?

I've only tested one Vest account so far, and I failed it, so I'm not pretending to have all the answers.

What I can say is that the experience was interesting enough that I want to keep exploring.

The platform has some rough edges, and I'm not convinced its instant accounts offer the best value for my trading style.

But the broader idea of trading perpetual contracts on stocks, indices, and crypto through a prop firm?

Yeah, I think that's worth paying attention to.

And if Vest's $13 million funding round is any indication, I'm probably not the only one.

Sources and documents

Details can change. Review the linked sources and dated evidence alongside this report.

CryptoPerpetual FuturesProp FirmsVest MarketsVest Capital