Foraxis 30-Second Trade Checks + Discount Code AUDIT

Foraxis requires every trade to stay open for at least 30 seconds across programs and phases; an earlier close is described as a soft breach. Measure the duration from the actual execution record, not from when you began preparing the order or when a chart candle started. This guide explains a practical timestamp ledger and the questions that still need account-specific clarification.

Verified code: AUDIT, 30% off eligible base fees. The coupon was verified by Yash R. on 12 October 2026. The official rulebook was checked for this article on 8 October 2026. There is no claimed independent purchase or trading test.

Verified on 12 October 2026. Verified code: AUDIT.

Start with executed time, not decision time

The current Foraxis rulebook states a 30-second minimum for every trade, program and phase. It also lists tick-scalping restrictions separately. Passing the elapsed-time test therefore does not establish that every aspect of an approach is permitted.

A trading decision can precede an execution by several seconds or longer. A pending order can wait far longer. Neither waiting period automatically belongs in the time a position was open. Record order submission and execution as separate events so they cannot be confused later.

For a simple fully opened and fully closed position, the journal calculation is close timestamp minus open timestamp. Use the same time basis for both. The following examples are hypothetical and do not represent actual trader records:

The final row catches a common visual mistake. Crossing into a new minute on the chart does not mean a full minute elapsed. A spreadsheet should calculate the difference between complete timestamps, including the date, instead of subtracting just the seconds field.

Why a screen stopwatch can be misleading

Suppose an order is submitted at 14:00:00, fills at 14:00:04 and closes at 14:00:32. The decision-to-close interval is 32 seconds, while execution-to-close is 28. The latter is the meaningful duration for this simple example.

Device clocks, rounded display times and delayed notifications can complicate reconstruction. Preserve the platform's execution record rather than relying only on a phone timer or the time a notification appeared. If available timestamps lack the precision needed to resolve a boundary case, label the result uncertain and ask Foraxis how its system measures it.

Do not deliberately aim for exactly 30.000 seconds based on a locally displayed clock. This article's exact-boundary row explains the published phrase “at least”; it is not a promise about timestamp resolution, latency or how the platform categorizes every fill.

Treat partial exits as a question to resolve

A simple duration formula becomes less obvious when a position is built or reduced in pieces. Imagine two units fill at 09:00:00, one additional unit at 09:00:20, and one unit closes at 09:00:40. The first entry is 40 seconds old, while the added unit is only 20 seconds old.

Without a documented allocation method, a journal cannot confidently decide which entry the reduction closes for the rule. The public minimum-duration explanation does not specify every partial-close, aggregated-position or stop-trigger exception. Keep fill-level records and ask how the selected account applies the rule to them.

A useful question is specific: “For this account, is minimum duration measured separately for each opening fill and matched closing fill, or from an aggregated position's initial opening?” That is more actionable than asking whether scalping is allowed in general. Save the written response with the account's terms.

A soft-breach label deserves a separate review column

Do not use “soft” as a synonym for harmless. The rulebook labels early closes as soft breaches, while broader enforcement wording allows action on accounts and attributable profit. It does not establish a universal number of free early exits or an unconditional warning before consequences.

Use a record with these fields:

If an early exit occurs while controlling risk, document it honestly and request clarification. Never keep a dangerous position open simply to improve a compliance statistic. Equally, do not assume a stop-triggered exit receives an exception that the public text does not grant. Strategy design should accommodate the firm's rules without abandoning appropriate loss control.

Reconcile the complete session before a reward request

A sample review might contain 12 closed trades, with 10 longer than 30 seconds, one at 28 seconds and one whose timestamp resolution is uncertain. The useful output is a list of the two records needing attention. “Ten out of twelve passed” does not create a published allowance for the other two.

Review whether partial fills, transaction exports or platform time settings explain an apparent mismatch. Avoid rewriting timestamps, ignoring losing trades or removing inconvenient rows. A clean journal preserves the original evidence and places your interpretation beside it.

A reward request is a later stage of account review, not a way to discover whether a planned trading style was acceptable. Resolve uncertain exit mechanics before expanding activity. If a firm answer conflicts with the rulebook, ask which written version governs the specific account.

Entry-price examples remain separate

The official rulebook currently lists all six 1-Step Core base fees. These three examples apply AUDIT's 30% reduction once, using the same calculation as the current PFA coupon page.

The discounted fee equals the regular base multiplied by 0.70. The table does not transfer Core prices to Edge or stack AUDIT with the separate public campaign. Optional services, taxes and conversion need their own calculation. A coupon does not remove the minimum-duration condition.

Select the full program and size on Foraxis's official website, confirm eligibility and the current terms, apply AUDIT, and check the accepted reduction and total before paying. Keep the receipt and issued rules alongside the execution journal. For broader context see the Foraxis review and forex prop-firm comparison.

Disclosure: PFA may earn a commission from qualifying referrals. The examples are educational accounting illustrations, not personal financial advice or evidence of a tested strategy. Foraxis programs are simulated, purchase fees can be lost, and neither a timing calculation nor a coupon guarantees approval or payment. No fixed AUDIT expiry is stated.