CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 64 % 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.

DarwinIA allocations


Recently I have received a second allocation in my DARWIN FLI. Also, I have recently invested a little in my own DARWIN to get a better idea of how the trades are copied and what latency/slippage is experienced and what trades are influenced the most.

However, I have already been backed for August-October, from which I can not find any divergence data.

Which got me wondering:

  • Is DarwinIA allocation treated/routed differently from investors funds?
  • Is there a way to find info on divergence statistics on DarwinIA allocation?

I think I read somewhere that DarwinIA allocation is not actually traded, which made no sense to me, as Darwinex would only have potential downside in paying performance fees to profitable traders…


Allocation is not real money and does not cause divergence.
Darwinex is allocating more than 150 darwins and the great part are only lucky and they lose after being allocated.
If it were real they would lose more than one million per year.
Paying fees to the (few) winners they spend only ~20k per month.

Here you can find more details:
Disclose darwinia contest porfolio


Do you have any source for this, as well as the average profitability of DarwinIA winners? As to me it still does not make much sense, nor does it instill much confidence in their traders by not having real skin in the game…

Say it is all just fake money with performance based prizes, the paid performance fees are nothing but advertising expenses then…? Guess if it pulls in over 20k/month in extra commissions (400M$ traded without rebates) it is worth it… I have no idea about the operating expenses/revenues of Darwinex as a whole though…

EDIT (1): Your rationale in your linked thread makes sense, it still boggles my mind though :stuck_out_tongue:

EDIT (2): Looking further, Medialux does not explicitly state that darwinIA allocation is demo:

I know that the management of Darwinex explained us the way from DarwinIA AUM was not demo but real, but I confess that I do not know if the impact on the divergence is null, complete, partial, Etc.

Additionally, the linked videos are private :frowning:

You will never find an explicit statement but you can find a lot of discussion about it.
Thy dont’ trumpet it because it would be bad marketing.
3 years ago the allocation ws summed to investments, now it is separeted and defined “notional allocation”.
What matters is that fees are real and accounted as every investor.

Let’s wait for other experienced users of the community… :wink:

That makes a lot of sense.

Darwinex does invest through DarwinexLabs, however? I noticed that they have bought and sold my DARWIN like 5 times in the past two weeks for different amounts.

1 Like

But they dont’ disclose the result, I asked it at least 5 times than I got tired to be ignored…:joy:

once upon a time ther was DWEX …
The present is @DarwinexLabs
The future could be “Darwinex Label”

1 Like

Been thinking it over for the past 2 days and the whole idea does make some more sense after all. It is, and will always be extremely hard to find consistently profitable traders. If they turn out to be good enough, they will close for outside funding soon enough, or they crash and burn. Unfortunately, most will crash and burn.

Has anybody backtested DarwinIA winners performance before? I’d be interested to see results. More interesting would be if we can find a common denominator among the biggest losers in the following months for example…

I don’t see why they should close for outside funding. If they’re good and succeed in attracting investor capital then why surrender this. Darwinex has more to offer than DarwinIA.

1 Like

lets have a look at the last year of the winner
jan-july - grey vertical line indicate end of month that won allocation








Ofcourse, it depends massively on the edge and the divergence suffered per amount traded, but at some point a strategy will reach a point where it is no longer attractive to investors and will get closed to more funding, to preserve the profitability for those already on the ride. A liberal interpretation of the efficient market hypothesis would imply this to happen quickly once a trackrecord is proven sufficiently solid (and unlimited access to investors funds ofcourse, which is purely hypothetical).

This sample of n=6, of the 1st-place winners is not really significant, but does not show a positive image, with 1 in profit, 2 around breakeven and 3 in solid red. However, there must be a way to grab all the allocated DARWINS every month and put them into a portfolio. I was hoping somebody here has already done this or at least has a framework to do this easily. Otherwise I might come back to this later when I’m done with more important work :stuck_out_tongue:

I’l save you time, it is a losing portfolio

best to study individual darwins on their own merits.


Darwinia has been designed to prize the winners, not “not to prize” the losers.
Being allocated once has almost no significance, it means you have a decent trackrecord and a very lucky month.
Even if DScore were more efficient the entry is very bad, it is very difficult to make money with Darwinia, I can tell you as trader allocated many times.

As investor I am trying to take advantage of stacking allocations.
CavaliereVerde's DWN portfolio
Different small allocations are more significant than a single big allocation and in this way I am increasing the timeframe to 6 months.
The lookback and the diversification could help to compensate the bad entry let’s wait and see.