Maybe I did not articulate what I ment.
I mean that IF the current portfolio is not performing (because the filter is not good enough) then why keep those darwins? I am guessing many of them do not fullfill the criteria of your new filters. I hope I make myself clear now - let me know if I am busting your chops with all those Qs.
I have two observations from looking extensively on history - particularly native history.
a) Many darwins that have good native trackrecord (not that there are so many that do..) have stats that suggest that their strategy has changed a lot recently. Also, there is no way to tell easily if they had BIG changes like used to be scalping ones in the past or what not. What I am saying is that IF someone gives big weight to native trackrecord THEN if the strategy has changed (different assets/timeframes) then in reality he gives a big value to the trader himself. Not that this is a bad thing. I will give an example: DCD. This darwin shows that the last year has different strategy that the previous trackrecord.
b) You think that there are 20+ darwins that have good trackrecord and are worth investing in? I am struggling to be honest to find them:/