Evals Sync With Evals, Fundeds With Fundeds: The Rule Behind a Prop Farm

If you run more than one funded-trading account, the obvious move is to copy one into the rest. One decision, many seats. It is also where most farms quietly go wrong, because the accounts being copied are not all trying to do the same thing.

Our rule, and the reason our own desk is built this way: evaluations only sync with evaluations, and funded accounts only sync with funded accounts. Two trees, never crossed.

The two objectives

| Group | What it is trying to do | How it has to trade | |---|---|---| | Evaluations | Pass — reach the target while satisfying the consistency rule | Spread on purpose across several days; a heroic day can disqualify an otherwise clean pass | | Funded | Cashflow — steady and safe | Treated as the thing you protect, not the thing you push |

Those are not two moods. They are two rulebooks pointing in opposite directions. An evaluation is *rewarded* for reaching a number and *penalised* for reaching it too fast. A funded account is not trying to reach any number; it is trying to stay alive and pay on schedule. We go deeper on each in trading to pass, not to earn and the funded group: treated safer than evals.

What happens when you cross them

Copy a funded account's steady rhythm into an evaluation and the evaluation may never reach its target inside the firm's time or drawdown budget. Copy an evaluation's push into a funded account and you are taking exactly the risk a funded account exists to avoid — on the seat that funds the whole farm.

Either direction forces one objective onto accounts that need the other. The copier does not know which account is which. You have to.

Why this is a risk-management rule, not a preference

A breach on one account should never be able to *cause* a breach on another. With two separate trees, that is true by construction: an evaluation that fails takes down nothing but itself, and a funded seat never inherits an evaluation's aggression. With one mixed tree the containment depends on which account happens to be leading that day, which is the kind of thing that is fine right up until it isn't. Breach can't flow uphill is the mechanics.

A note on where this came from

The earlier shape of our own build had a funded account leading a handful of evaluations. It looked efficient. It was only ever correct while there was a single funded account and therefore nothing else for it to sync with. Once a second funded seat existed, the split became obvious — and the founder's reason for confirming it was risk, not tidiness.

What this does not tell you

It does not tell you how to trade either group; it tells you not to trade them as one. It is compatible with firms' rules on copying — which, at every firm we have read, permit copying only between accounts you personally own — but you must verify that on each firm's own site. And it is education about structure, not a promise about outcomes.

Kingdom Portfolios is an independent education company. We're not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by any prop firm, broker, or platform named here, and we don't use affiliate links. Nothing here is investment advice or a recommendation to join any firm or trade any product. Funded-account evaluations cost real money and most participants never pass or get paid — learn first, and trade your own risk. Rules and fees change often; verify current details on each company's own site. Education only.