CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 66 % of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with this provider. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.

CavaliereVerde's live portfolio

It’s not just Etoro’s problem.

Take a look here:

These guys are all professionals.

What I like more it’s the section “Absolute Return”. :sweat_smile:

1 Like

Yes but traditional funds are just stocks portfolios.
You pay a “professional” to perform worse than spx500 :smiley:

Trading = hedge funds
this is the sad reality of 2018


After my previous negative comment i want to say something positive.
The result of this month is impressive, but what matters for me is that it has been acheived with an equity of 7k and a VAR of 50% , I think this is the max leverage allowed after ESMA.

So even with past mistakes the trader now is doing serious.


After getting huge Darwinia allocation, the darwin volatility spiked - now, I don’t know if it was due to underlying asset volatility spike, or trader changing their risk profile (I am leaning towards this, since there is little incentive not to with old equity rules)

1 Like

If it were for Darwinia he could trade with a var of 5%.
With this risk profile he is trusting his strategy and he wants to make money, not just pips and win a contest/game.

1 Like

This year I am slighly negative as investor (-3%), despite it I paid 300€ in performance fees.
Rebates were desinged to cover this unfair situation, investors rebates have been +330€

Of course it isn’t Darwinex’ fault, it is how the financial world works.
If you buy 10 funds at Morningstar and only 3 make money you have to pay the performance fees to those 3.

Yeah, I understand that. They estimated that rebates would cover something like 80% of differential from real net 20% high watermark commission in case of a diversified portfolio - thus easing the negative side effects of diversification. In case of a single Darwin portfolio this problem doesn’t exist, obviously.

They still didn’t have to do that though - cover this cost themselves. That they chose to shows that they are serious about their clients success, and not just revenue, at least at the moment.


They want investors to win or at least to keep on because winning as investors is the most difficult thing.
Winning as broker/bank is the most easy thing, you win even if 100% of your customers are losers.

Winning as provider is not so difficult, if I have 3 darwins and only one wins I earn fees.

As investor I need the majority of the invested darwins to be profitable.

When I started this portfolio i thought there were many traders that were also investors, now I know that there are very few, and this is the reason.


Business and investing is ALL about Probability and what Size to place on each investment, depending on statistics and probability.

What is the likelihood of the “expected outcome”, given a sample size of at least 1000 trades?

Same can be applied to a portfolio of DARWINs. it’s just that most people don’t know how to do this or don’t believe that the time invested in this process is actually most valuable way to build success slowly.

Probability of Success:
1. Broker
2. Provider
3. Investor

If you want to make money just bet proportionally on proven winners, as patterns repeat themselves over a long period of time.

It seems a robust strategy not fitted to impress investors…
this one trades mainly indexes

That is the problem : how to find proven winners.
When I started to study Darwinex it was the beginning of 2015 , there were 200 darwins.
There are only 2 darwins still working and investable today: NTI and ERQ .

Now we have 2000 active darwins so there should be 20 investable but they are not the ones with highest return or highest DScore…

1 Like

Yes but I think that “OLE” is efficient for bull markets… :sunglasses:

1 Like

I am about to start building my own live portfolio, so I would like to pick your brains a little if I may.
I’m curious as to whether you used the 2x leverage on your portfolio, and your thoughts on that option. I would also be interested to hear what the VaR reported on your portfolio is for the current number of Darwins. I guess it will be quite low as you have a lot of Darwins in it, how many is it currently! Thanks for any information you can provide, I’ve been away from Darwinex for a while, and am pleased to see the community is still thriving.


Yes my porfolio is leveraged, 33 darwins are invested at the moment and VAR is 6.5% .
You can find monthly reports in this topic.
During 2018 it reached +15% and now it is down at -3% .
Leverage is not the problem, the problem is finding robust winners, avoiding above average stuff that go below average after being invested.
I would prefer a winning portfolio with var 10% than a losing portfolio with var 5%.
Despite mine is a wide portfolio i don’t suggest it to other investors, better a winning portfolio with 3 darwins than a losing portfolio with 30.
We can discuss for weeks about filters and scores but going for very long trackrecords always works, specially if they are native.


I still disagree about this point. Dependence of future returns on past returns does not make sense to me.

If I flip a fair coin 10 times, and get 8 tails and 2 heads -> Sure, I am seeing above average results, but this doesn’t suddenly make the coin unfair in the other direction. The chances are still 50/50, and my expectations should be to see average behavior from here on, not below average.

I think we see stuff that perform above average on stuff like “on fire” and “trending”, and then they return to their average behavior, not below average behavior.

Yes but people do not overoptimize coin flipping! :smiley:
traders… brokers… banks… show you above average stuff and you believe…

It doesn’t matters if strategies revert to average or below average, as investor you lose if you buy high and your expectations are wrong.

1 Like

Sure, I am not arguing against that. I am saying that being above average at the moment does NOT mean that your future potential turns NEGATIVE, or being BELOW average does not make your future potential POSITIVE (say, in case of waiting for drawdowns to buy in).

I am saying that your future potential is INDEPENDENT of your current performance.

In case of above average performers -> that is just the thing, their performance is ABOVE POPULATION AVERAGE (sample average is above population average), but future is still expected to yield population average -> independent of current performance.

Do you not believe in good traders?

Have you ever thought that maybe you all are over-complicating things??

One of the hugest lessons good traders learn is: Keep it simple. Don’t keep changing your strategy or second guessing your entry or your position/analysis.
Stay in long enough to know for sure whether you were right or wrong, and then no matter what the outcome is LEARN FROM IT and do not repeat that mistake. This is how we progress and compound our equity.

1 Like

The under perforrmance of investors is not random.
Everything is biased while coin flipping isn’t.
Sellers shows their luckyest stuff, stuff that were in synch with past market, that get out of synch on future.
There are no phases nor cycles in coin flipping
Sellers shows their stuff after an above average phase, buyers buy just before the below average phase.

Oh absolutely. This is true in EVERYTHING, as far as I have observed.
Just because it sounds complicated does not meant that it is complicated though.

I am bringing up my previous point because I have repeatedly seen this position throughout this community -> people waiting for lows to buy in, and avoiding buys at peakish points.

I don’t understand this, in fact I strongly disagree with it. But since it is a prevalent opinion circulated here, I want to understand why people think so. I would love to be proven wrong too. I don’t care about being right, I just want to make money :smile: