HyroTrader One-Step $100K: $749 base price, 10% target, 4% daily drawdown, 6% max loss, Swing upgrade and “BRIDGE” 10% off.
Akash Mane is the Founder and CEO of Prop Firm Bridge, where he leads the company’s vision, platform growth, and long term strategic direction. He oversees operations across research, marketing, content systems, SEO, and product positioning while driving the platform’s mission of becoming a trusted authority in the prop firm industry. At Prop Firm Bridge, Akash plays a direct role in shaping educational frameworks, comparison systems, and trader focused resources designed to help users make informed decisions with transparency and confidence. His work focuses on building scalable organic growth systems, improving platform authority, and strengthening trust through accurate, structured, and search optimized content. In addition to leadership responsibilities, he actively manages growth strategy, social media marketing, search visibility, and brand development to expand the platform’s reach across global trading audiences.
Manoj Gholap is responsible for content accuracy, compliance, and factual integrity at Prop Firm Bridge. He acts as the final verification layer for all published content, ensuring that prop firm reviews, rules, and comparisons are clear, accurate, and aligned with transparency standards. Manoj plays a key role in maintaining trust and credibility across the platform.
Quick answer: HyroTrader One-Step $100K rules, price, BRIDGE savings, drawdown, risk and payout guide.
The HyroTrader One-Step $100K challenge has one 10% evaluation target equal to $10,000, a 4% daily drawdown allowance of $4,000 and a 6% maximum-loss amount of $6,000. The current base challenge deposit in PFB’s September 2026 audit is $749.
HyroTrader One-Step $100K coupon code “BRIDGE” gives 10% off. Ten percent of $749 is $74.90, producing simple challenge-price math of $674.10. The separate Swing daily-drawdown upgrade currently costs $229 for this size.
| Size | $100,000 |
|---|---|
| Base price | $749 |
| BRIDGE saving | $74.90 |
| Math after BRIDGE | $674.10 |
| Swing upgrade | $229 separately |
| Target | 10% / $10,000 |
| Daily drawdown | 4% / $4,000 |
| Maximum loss | 6% / $6,000 |
| Minimum trading days | 5 qualifying days |
| Time limit | Unlimited |
| Profit Distribution Rule | 40% during evaluation |
| Starting funded split | 80%, scaling to 90% |
The most important point is that One-Step is not just “one phase.” It is the tighter HyroTrader route. The 6% maximum-loss framework means position sizing matters from the first trade.
The current base challenge deposit is $749. This is the number used for the BRIDGE calculation in this guide.
$749 × 10% = $74.90 saved. $749 − $74.90 = $674.10 in simple arithmetic.
The $100K One-Step Swing upgrade currently costs $229. PFB keeps that add-on separate and does not automatically claim BRIDGE discounts it unless the live setup checkout itself shows the reduction.
A cheaper checkout does not change the 10% target or 6% maximum loss. The strategy has to fit those rules before the discount has practical value.
Ten percent of $100,000 is $10,000. A 1% account gain is $1,000, 0.5% is $500 and 0.25% is $250.
The evaluation requires five distinct qualifying trading days. Current guidance uses trade-value and P&L thresholds for whether a day counts, so traders should rely on the dashboard counter rather than tiny filler trades.
There is no normal deadline for reaching the target. This makes slower risk particularly rational because a trader does not need to force activity to beat a calendar.
The current main One-Step rule table lists no mandatory stop-loss obligation. A protective stop can still be good risk management, but the published core rule does not require one on every position.
Four percent of $100,000 is $4,000. This is an account rule, not a recommended daily risk budget.
Six percent equals $6,000. A strategy that regularly experiences more than 6% peak-to-trough equity drawdown is structurally mismatched unless position size is reduced.
The default Standard model trails the highest intraday equity point, including unrealized profit. A position can therefore tighten the daily reference while it is still open.
The paid Swing upgrade fixes the daily reference to start-of-day equity. The 4% percentage does not change; only the daily reference mechanic changes.
During evaluation, one trading day cannot contribute more than 40% of the total net result counted toward the target. If a day exceeds that share, the excess does not count toward target completion; current HyroTrader guidance does not describe that event by itself as an automatic failed challenge.
Two percent of $100,000 equals $2,000. For that day to represent 40% or less of total counted profit, total net result needs to reach at least $5,000, or 5% of the account.
Four percent equals $4,000. A 4% day would need at least 10% total net result to represent exactly 40%, which is the full One-Step target. Large single days can therefore make target completion less straightforward.
0.10% equals $100. Ten full losses would equal only 1%, leaving significant statistical room.
0.25% equals $250. Four losses equal 1%; a 2R winner contributes about 0.5% before costs.
0.50% equals $500. Twelve theoretical full losses equal the 6% maximum before costs. That is still a simplified upper-bound calculation, not a recommended plan.
1% equals $1,000. Only six theoretical full 1% losses fit inside 6% before costs. In crypto, that can be aggressive.
The maximum realized loss on one position is 3% of initial account balance, equal to $3,000 on $100K. A trader should operate far below that rule in ordinary risk management.
The 4% daily and 6% maximum-loss framework remains relevant after funding under current guidance.
Twenty-five percent of $100,000 is $25,000. That is the funded maximum total margin across open positions under the current exposure rule.
Two times $100,000 is $200,000. That is the headline aggregate open-notional ceiling for the funded account.
The 40% evaluation Profit Distribution Rule does not apply once funded. Funded traders instead need to manage drawdown and exposure rules.
Funded traders start at 80% profit share, with a published path to 90%. Eligible payouts are currently described as on-demand USDT/USDC settlements generally processed in roughly 12–24 hours.
Current supported challenge workflows include Bybit, Tealstreet and CLEO. The environment focuses on USDT perpetual futures rather than spot or CFDs.
Current official materials describe 700+ pairs and leverage up to 100× depending on symbol. Leverage capacity is not the same as safe risk.
CLEO provides hundreds of perpetual markets using Binance-based pricing/data. Platform choice can affect interface and execution workflow but does not remove HyroTrader’s account rules.
Crypto markets run continuously, so the account can be held overnight and through weekends under current general program guidance. Daily drawdown still resets according to the firm’s server logic.
The $100K One-Step account can suit traders whose historical equity drawdown is shallow, who want one evaluation phase and who can spread profit across at least five qualifying days.
It can be a weak fit for systems that routinely experience large open-profit retracements under trailing daily drawdown, one-day profit spikes above the 40% distribution threshold or more than 6% normal drawdown.
On $100K, a fixed $100 cash stop represents 0.100% of nominal capital. Account size is useful when it lowers the percentage represented by a normal cash stop rather than encouraging bigger risk.
The same fixed cash stop is a smaller percentage on $100K than on $50K, but the challenge deposit is higher. The upgrade makes sense when the percentage-risk improvement is worth the additional purchase cost.
$200K offers more nominal room but costs more. If normal cash risk is already small on $100K, the larger account may not add enough practical benefit.
One-Step uses one 10% target, 4% daily and 6% maximum loss. Two-Step uses 10% then 5%, 5% daily and 10% maximum loss. Two-Step is cheaper at the current base price, while One-Step removes the second phase.
Standard costs no drawdown add-on but trails intraday equity. Swing costs $229 extra and fixes the daily reference to the start of the day.
Relevant searches include HyroTrader One-Step $100K coupon code BRIDGE, HyroTrader $100K promo code, HyroTrader $100K discount code BRIDGE, HyroTrader One-Step $100K 10% off and BRIDGE HyroTrader $100K.
The answer is intentionally consistent: BRIDGE gives 10% off and has been independently verified by the PFB team. This exact-size page focuses on $100K; the main coupon page owns broad HyroTrader coupon intent.
PFB uses the current HyroTrader trading rules, the official FAQ and my.hyrotrader.com checkout to keep this size guide aligned with current rules and purchasing flow.
Read the HyroTrader One-Step pillar for all six sizes, the HyroTrader BRIDGE coupon authority for broad discount coverage and the full HyroTrader review for the 88/100 PFB Score and firm-level assessment.
At 0.25% risk ($250), a full loss is small relative to the 6% maximum. A 2R winner adds about 0.5%, creating a slower but more durable path toward the 10% target.
At 0.50% ($500), a 2R winner adds about 1%. The target can progress faster, but losing streaks consume the 6% maximum twice as quickly as at 0.25%.
A 4% winning day equals $4,000. Because of the 40% evaluation rule, one such day can dominate the counted result and force the trader to produce more distributed profit before completion.
If open equity rises sharply and then falls, Standard trailing daily drawdown measures from the intraday high. Swing changes this daily reference behavior. The exact same closed result can therefore create different risk paths.
At 0.1% risk, one full loss equals $100 and five full losses equal 0.50%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.25% risk, one full loss equals $250 and five full losses equal 1.25%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.5% risk, one full loss equals $500 and five full losses equal 2.50%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.75% risk, one full loss equals $750 and five full losses equal 3.75%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 1% risk, one full loss equals $1,000 and five full losses equal 5.00%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.1% risk, one full loss equals $100 and five full losses equal 0.50%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.25% risk, one full loss equals $250 and five full losses equal 1.25%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.5% risk, one full loss equals $500 and five full losses equal 2.50%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.75% risk, one full loss equals $750 and five full losses equal 3.75%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 1% risk, one full loss equals $1,000 and five full losses equal 5.00%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.1% risk, one full loss equals $100 and five full losses equal 0.50%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.25% risk, one full loss equals $250 and five full losses equal 1.25%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.5% risk, one full loss equals $500 and five full losses equal 2.50%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.75% risk, one full loss equals $750 and five full losses equal 3.75%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 1% risk, one full loss equals $1,000 and five full losses equal 5.00%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.1% risk, one full loss equals $100 and five full losses equal 0.50%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.25% risk, one full loss equals $250 and five full losses equal 1.25%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.5% risk, one full loss equals $500 and five full losses equal 2.50%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.75% risk, one full loss equals $750 and five full losses equal 3.75%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 1% risk, one full loss equals $1,000 and five full losses equal 5.00%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.1% risk, one full loss equals $100 and five full losses equal 0.50%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.25% risk, one full loss equals $250 and five full losses equal 1.25%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.5% risk, one full loss equals $500 and five full losses equal 2.50%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.75% risk, one full loss equals $750 and five full losses equal 3.75%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 1% risk, one full loss equals $1,000 and five full losses equal 5.00%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.1% risk, one full loss equals $100 and five full losses equal 0.50%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.25% risk, one full loss equals $250 and five full losses equal 1.25%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.5% risk, one full loss equals $500 and five full losses equal 2.50%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.75% risk, one full loss equals $750 and five full losses equal 3.75%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 1% risk, one full loss equals $1,000 and five full losses equal 5.00%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.1% risk, one full loss equals $100 and five full losses equal 0.50%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.25% risk, one full loss equals $250 and five full losses equal 1.25%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.5% risk, one full loss equals $500 and five full losses equal 2.50%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.75% risk, one full loss equals $750 and five full losses equal 3.75%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 1% risk, one full loss equals $1,000 and five full losses equal 5.00%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.1% risk, one full loss equals $100 and five full losses equal 0.50%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.25% risk, one full loss equals $250 and five full losses equal 1.25%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.5% risk, one full loss equals $500 and five full losses equal 2.50%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.75% risk, one full loss equals $750 and five full losses equal 3.75%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 1% risk, one full loss equals $1,000 and five full losses equal 5.00%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.1% risk, one full loss equals $100 and five full losses equal 0.50%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.25% risk, one full loss equals $250 and five full losses equal 1.25%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.5% risk, one full loss equals $500 and five full losses equal 2.50%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.75% risk, one full loss equals $750 and five full losses equal 3.75%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 1% risk, one full loss equals $1,000 and five full losses equal 5.00%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.1% risk, one full loss equals $100 and five full losses equal 0.50%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.25% risk, one full loss equals $250 and five full losses equal 1.25%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.5% risk, one full loss equals $500 and five full losses equal 2.50%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
At 0.75% risk, one full loss equals $750 and five full losses equal 3.75%. Compare that with the 6% maximum-loss boundary of $6,000. The account has unlimited time, so there is no structural need to increase risk purely for speed.
BRIDGE lowers the challenge deposit by 10%, but the safest account economics still come from reducing repeated failures rather than maximizing the discount per purchase.
The HyroTrader One-Step $100K challenge is a one-phase crypto evaluation with a meaningful trade-off: fewer stages, but only 6% maximum-loss room and a trailing 4% daily rule by default. It suits traders whose historical drawdown is naturally shallow.
For checkout savings, HyroTrader One-Step $100K coupon code “BRIDGE” gives 10% off. The current $749 base price produces simple BRIDGE math of $674.10. The Swing add-on remains a separate $229 cost unless its own checkout confirms otherwise.
Use “BRIDGE” for 10% off. Independently verified by the PFB team; last verified 21 September 2026.
The current audited base price is $749; simple 10% BRIDGE math gives $674.10.
10%, equal to $10,000.
4%, equal to $4,000 as the headline allowance.
6%, equal to $6,000.
No. The current 40% Profit Distribution Rule applies during evaluation, not on funded accounts.
Join the discussion
No comments yet
Sign in to leave a comment. Real traders only — one account, one voice.