Misleading Trading Performance and Refund Issues
I purchased Tradey in June 2026, and I deeply regret my decision. Based on my personal experience, I encountered five serious issues:
1. Misleading Trading Performance
I compared Tradey's advertised trading results against the actual signals I received and identified four discrepancies within a single month. In these instances, winning trades appeared to be included while losing trades were omitted, potentially inflating the advertised win rate and profit factor. This raises serious concerns about the accuracy and transparency of their published trading performance.
2. Weak and Overly Simplistic Trading Algorithm
From my observations, the signals appeared to follow a rigid, time-based approach, frequently triggering at exactly 10:30 AM Eastern Time or other fixed times. I saw little evidence that the strategy meaningfully adapted to changing market conditions or market regimes. For a premium-priced trading service, I expected considerably more sophistication.
3. Unreasonable Six-Month Satisfaction Guarantee Conditions
Tradey advertises a Six-Month Satisfaction Guarantee, the sales also said it is a Hassel-free return, but my refund request was denied based on an alleged mandatory risk-management requirement that(position sizing in NQ), in my view, was not clearly disclosed in the contract or during onboarding.
I find this particularly unreasonable because customer satisfaction should primarily reflect the performance of the trading signals(win rate and profit factor). Position sizing and individual risk tolerance should remain at the customer's discretion, rather than being used as an undisclosed barrier to obtaining a refund. More importantly, Tradey itself configured my trading account with settings that resulted in a loss exceeding 5% on a single trade, making its subsequent reliance on mandatory risk-management requirements particularly contradictory.
4. Extremely Frustrating Refund Process
Over approximately two months, I exchanged more than 15 emails with Tradey's support team and communicated directly with its CEO, Bryan Fuentes. Despite repeatedly raising my concerns and requesting a refund, the matter remains unresolved. The process has been unnecessarily time-consuming and frustrating, leaving me with the impression that Tradey is unwilling to honor its advertised guarantee.
5. Documented Trading Losses
I followed Tradey's signals for 27 trading days, resulting in a total trading loss of $2,979, excluding VPS fees.
My recorded performance was:
NQ: Approximately 60% win rate, with a 0.90 profit factor.
ES: Approximately 71% win rate, with a 0.48 profit factor.
These results demonstrate that even a relatively high win rate does not necessarily translate into profitability. In my experience, the trading signals consistently failed to deliver the performance I had expected based on Tradey's advertising.
Overall, I am extremely disappointed with Tradey's trading performance, the discrepancies in its advertised results, and its handling of my refund request. I paid $6,000 for this service, incurred nearly $3,000 in additional trading losses, and spent months attempting to obtain a refund under its advertised satisfaction guarantee.
Based on my experience, I cannot recommend Tradey. I strongly encourage prospective customers to independently verify its advertised trading records and carefully examine every condition of its refund guarantee before purchasing.
Svar från Tradeyalgorithm
Our team, including the Founder, made genuine efforts to work with this client. The Founder personally spoke with him multiple times, listened to his concerns, and genuinely wanted him to succeed. We understand his frustration with losing money. Nobody likes losing money.
However, there are several points worth clarifying.
First, the trading performance he references comes from a client account that sometimes operates ONE algorithm and sometimes BOTH. Clients are free to use one or multiple algorithms simultaneously on which ever day they wish and please. Therefore, performance summaries and order logs will not necessarily show trades from both algorithms every day.
Second, Navy Seal does not trade at a fixed time. It can execute trades at 3 AM, 5 AM, 10 AM, 2 PM, or other times throughout the day, depending on market conditions.
GoldX, meanwhile, operates exclusively between 10 AM and 3 PM.
Our algorithms incorporate custom Fibonacci calculations, reverse VWAP systems, rolling 30-day volume analysis, and other technical conditions. They are designed to respond dynamically to market conditions, not simply execute trades at 10:30 AM every day.
Regarding the refund:
The client signed an agreement containing three main eligibility requirements:
1. Maintain a functioning internet connection.
2. Manual trading is permitted. We evaluate algorithm performance independently of personal trades.
3. Follow the Mandatory Risk Requirements.
We have always tried to be flexible and reasonable with clients regarding these requirements.
This client had approximately $20,000 in his trading account and configured his algorithm to risk $1,600 on a single trade.
That's 8% of his entire account on every single algorithm trade.
For reference, risking $1,600 per trade would be much more reasonable on a $100,000 account, where it represents just 1.6%.
Not on a $20,000 account.
And despite taking that level of risk, his total reported trading loss was approximately $2,979.
He's actually VERY fortunate that his losses weren't significantly greater considering how aggressively he was trading.
We repeatedly explain to clients that trading involves risk. There are going to be winning trades and losing trades. That's the reality of financial markets.
And this is exactly why we have Mandatory Risk Requirements in the first place (To Protect You)
Regarding our efforts to resolve this matter:
The founder personally spoke with him multiple times.
He genuinely wanted to help him. Wanted him to succeed. And encouraged him to call him directly if things didn't work out.
Instead, he went through the payment processor and disputed his payments. Those disputes were ultimately resolved in our favor.
Afterward, he sent messages threatening to go to court, leave additional negative reviews, and continue publicly criticizing the Founder and the company unless he received 100% of the refund including trading losses.
He's entitled to his opinion. He's entitled to be unhappy. And he's certainly entitled to pursue whatever legal remedies he believes are appropriate.
But I don't think it's fair to misrepresent how our algorithms operate or leave out the fact that he was taking enormous risks relative to his account size.
We built this company because we genuinely want to help people (Especially in a Industry known for scams, cash grabs, and the worse). We understand that not every client will have the experience they hoped for, and we are always willing to have a conversation when something goes wrong.
But there has to be some personal responsibility when it comes to trading.
We provide the technology, the support, and the risk guidelines. Clients ultimately decide how aggressively they want to trade, and those decisions have consequences or rewards (Whether they win big or lose big. It is their decision)
We wish him nothing but the best. We really do.