First, noticed that some closed Darwins have an error 404 page whether others have their data taken away.
as opposed to
What’s the explanation ?
Should Error 404 ever happen ? A trace that the Darwin once existed needs to remain visible forever.
Now more argument. By reviewing DarwinIA winners only, I noticed all of those who closed shop officially :
AIS, BIV, DDD, DRT, IMR, FUV, HEE, HBU, KPZ, MRI, OOT, PFL, RCY, USV
While a bunch of others did not close but stopped all activity nonetheless, namely DAR, DDD, DUR, GIU, HBU, HQH, JEG, PHI, PLP, QIE, SUJ, VNT, WCC, YMG, ZDV, ZNY
If Dwx were to listen to feedback and later auto-sets them to inactive or down by some mechanism, they may disappear as well.
My question is rhetoretical to Dwx.
How do you see compatible the fact that you later wish to offer a Darwin API for analysis and control purposes and at the same hide your database of the worst Darwins, almost like the garbage / failure part of the ecosystem ?
I am not seeing backtesters perform logical projections based on incomplete available data. No serious forecasting / study would be possible in such context.
As a trader which I plan to be on futures, I may be happy to hide my failed accounts. I understand that it is good business for myself and for Darwinex to scratch the bad and keep the good.
Nevertheless, to be honest, it will be also unfair when superstar Darwins get too many investors when their pilot has blown 5 accounts in the past. Investors could take this whole picture under consideration as a simple (but inaccurate, just like most other criterias) rule of thumb of precaution and it would even up investments amongst more diversified Darwins if investors had an history of all the Darwins and not only the tip of the iceberg.
If we split the pea in half, I would arguably be fine with the closed Darwins being kept away from the public eye, however their whole historical data should be accessible by the upcoming API to the programmers wanting to elaborate portofolios from the past into the future.