Instant Funding Programmes

Every row is a verbatim sentence read from the named source's own page through our fetch service on the date shown, hash-pinned to the stored read (the sha of the page's visible text; the raw page is mirrored to R2).

12 of the 32 named sources that could be read published a usable figure; 20 published none and are recorded as not published, never filled in; 1 could not be read (blocked, dead or unreachable) and count nowhere.

The headline figures (median, minimum, maximum, quartiles) are over ONE figure per source in USD (a source's median where its page yielded several accepted sentences), so N counts sources, never sentences; 562 candidate sentence(s) were refused by a reviewer with the reason recorded.

The fuller derivation this dataset is chartered to grow into (not yet what the figures above are; they are each source's own published figure as read): one row per firm per instant-funding plan: the one-time or recurring fee, the simulated account size it buys, and therefore the COST-TO-CAPITAL ratio (fee divided by account size) which is the only figure that compares a $14 five-thousand-dollar account with a $1,599 three-hundred-thousand-dollar one; beside it the four restrictions that are the price of skipping the evaluation - the payout cap, the drawdown type and size, the minimum days before a first withdrawal, and the profit split, each quoted from the firm's own plan page.

The derivations nobody publishes: the median cost-to-capital across the whole instant market and its spread, the SHARE of instant programmes carrying a payout cap at all, the share whose drawdown is trailing rather than static, the gap between list price and the discount code running on the same page on the same day, and repriced-since.

The evaluation firms are the control group: the same ratio computed over the account index says what the no-evaluation premium actually is.

562 candidate sentences on these pages were refused by a reviewer; each refusal and its reason is recorded in the review ledger.