Nope, I tell you, you are anchored to the old fixed VaR system.
The variable one is a game changer in Darwinex and it is much better than the previous one. It doesn’t sometimes help and sometimes creates harm. It helps to keep luck out of the equation and it does a beautiful job. In my opinion, this period proved that it can be improved, this is it.
No one can ever be sure to have an edge against the market. Even if they do, no one can be sure that that edge is going to last forever.
This is not a reason to cut the legs to someone who is doing good, that knows what is doing and that is making money for investors.
I don’t have the arrogance to pretend that I have proved anything here and I honestly don’t think I have to prove anything to anyone. I am just a trader who shares his strategy. Investors can decide to follow my Darwin or not. I would be happy to see people trusting me and my activity, but I will continue to do my job regardless.
As I have shown with some numbers above, the current VaR is cutting legs to someone who’s been here for longer and is doing good, talking about HFD (and many others).
The current VaR costed $260K to HFD investors. Is it fair to let them pay because Darwinex has to save $260K from somewhere else, from people who invested in the wrong Darwin?
In my opinion, this can be considered fair or not fair, but certainly it doesn’t seem meritocratic. Neither for good traders, nor for good investors.
I also would like to have an opinion from someone from Darwinex about it.
Just asking without any bad intention or attacking anyone. A pacific question.
If not increasing the trading days in the calculation, would it be a big deal to increase the range of the VaR? Instead of 5-10, would it cause a huge damage to make it 5-20%?
If the trader is suddenly increasing the risk by an abnormal parameter, if I understand well, there is already D-Leverage calculation triggering the Risk Manager, adjusting the trade for investors.
So the problem is if the trader gradually increases the risk by a small amount, or if there is an increment of volatility, like the one happening now.
In that case, would it be too bad if the VaR ratio is constant for a little longer, before deciding to change Darwin’s behavior?
Just asking. If I’m wrong or we have totally different opinions, then friends like before, no hard feelings.