Unfortunetly there are barely a dozen of traders who can benefit and darwinex can’t survive only with them
The question si: if the majority of traders wins, how can darwinex is going to pay them? Smth tells me the contrary. Guess what .
Darwinia is very useful when you have a profitable system and you don’t have 3-4 years of trackrecord.
When you have a long trackrecord you dont need the contest anymore.
Maybe we have just 20 or 30 true traders, without darwinia they would be one half.
The majority loses so there are no problems…
I definitely think DarwinIA needs to stay, its a huge attraction for new traders. I myself originally joined because of the fact its possible to get investment.
However I do think Darwinex has reached a size recently where maybe it might need some tweaking. Its great to see the platform growing but maybe the quantity of Darwins has outgrown the current DarwinIA model? I’m not really sure, just thinking out loud as it were.
When i arrived at the beginning of 2015 i think there were less than 5 true traders.
This is the right place to look:
Probably they are finding 4 true traders per year.
If with a minor contest they find 6/year it would be justified.
Agreed. I think Darwinex Lab’s investment is a great addition. More like a managed fund of funds or prop trading kind of model. It would be good to know how much investment its putting in and where but I think thats still being decided/developed?
Darwinia is very important for serious traders, I donot care most of my Darwins will need another 3-6 months to begin to win it, I aim to very long term, I want to win the prizes… these money stays for six months without hesitation…
I agree, for many it’s the first time they get external investment, it’s a big selling point for the platform. Also by nature most traders are competitive people so the competition element gets fun
There is competition but more true traders we have more true money will come.
More true traders we have less will be the visibility of scammers and dreamers.
Everything will raise the credibility of the environment and the credibilityof traders that are already in.
I think Darwinia is what make Darwinex different and great! I wouldn´t keep trading if Darwinia wouldn´t exist…on fact it is my motivation!
I realize that we’re not even half way December, but for the sake of argument: at the moment of this writing, 22 of the top 48 haven’t earned any past allocation so far, and lots of traders that aren’t in the top 48 at this moment do have some past allocation. In fact, if you sort the DarwinIA ranking on decreasing Current Allocation, you have to scroll down a lot to get to 0, so I’m not sure on what your statement is based.
And for those dozen or so traders that end up in the top 48 month after month, they’re just consistent traders. Why would you deny rewarding consistency?
I slightly disagree. Wouldn’t serious traders put their underlying strategy before their Darwin and their D-score and their DarwinIA ranking? I speak for myself when I say I’d rather have a good underlying strategy with a bad Darwin than the other way around, but maybe that’s an unpopular opinion here?
On Topic: I think the entire DarwinIA system was created by Darwinex foremost to instill confidence in their algorithms for potential Investors, by investing 24M (4M/month with a 6 month duration) in the top 48 Darwins themselves, and only second most to reward traders with good Darwins. I don’t know the weight of experience in the D-score, but I’m pretty sure a lot of thought went into determining that weight, and I think the experience attribute is indicative to extrapolate future performance from past performance more reliably with a higher experience result. Maybe creating a Minor League DarwinIA for low experience Darwins could/would put a spotlight on Darwins that aren’t really good investments? I am curious to see a Darwin employee reply in this topic and share their thoughts
This could be another option for fees collected from community data (Darwinian Dividends)?
Ranked via a notional D-score as if their Ex were 10?
After 2 year from this suggestion we essentially have the same Darwinia as before…
Let’s try with something completely different :
A contest for traders with a serious trakcrecord of 3 years, to prize people that is working their ass here since many years.
i like this suggestion as well. Similar concept had been used by almost all prop’ trading firms.
Their growth cycle usually favor traders with good MM/risk management over long period of track records. Not just luck.
DarwinIA is said to be a monthly challenge for traders, not a tool for investors to filter good or bad Darwins.
Traders with short track records are already ‘disqualified’ from the start. They have no chance for allocation due to lack of Ex.
Traders with a medium track record will need to outperform 10 Ex Darwins by a lot.
In the context of a monthly trading challenge, what DarwinIA claims to be, why is QUP (Ex: 5.9 at time of posting) ranked lower than SIV (Ex: 10 at time of posting)? Clearly QUP is outperforming SIV this month and should be ranked above SIV.
Putting so much weight on Ex for the DarwinIA ranking only makes sense to me if you don’t reset that ranking every month. Make it a 6-month challenge then, or a yearly challenge. Then I’m absolutely fine with how it’s calculated right now.
That said: I fully agree that some kind of D-score needs to be taken in account for the DarwinIA ranking, but maybe a modified D-Score, specifically for DarwinIA, with less weight on Experience.
I also fully agree that private investors should not look at Darwins with less than 10 Ex, or even less than 18 or more months of track record to invest in.
DarwinIA in it’s current monthly resetting form, should be there to help out those promising traders that aren’t ready yet to be looked at by private investors, but it’s failing at that due to high Ex requirements.
I understand exactly what you say and what you feel, but in my opinion darwinia has to lead what type of traders, clientes and darwins, Darwinex wants.
If darwinia works without ex, they are sending a message of it is better to close a darwin, and open another and quickly have the enough experience to compete in darwinia. I am sure that it is not your case, but it will be a lot that will think in that way. Soon, we would have more than 10.000 darwins.
But it is a problem with dscore not darwinia, and if almost everybody accept the weight of ex in dscore (for me the most important IA and if I had to stay with only one of the 12 would be this, and the chart of the return), it has to be accepted in darwinia.
Really also it is a problem with the current mindset of “Here and Now”, because 18 months is absolutely nothing when you are planning a bussiness as it should be Darwinex for every provider.
But, I am always try to be open minded, and it could be a good idea to detect promising traders, compensating these darwins that have this filter, facilitating the access to darwinia with a special score.
I may be mistaken here, but allocation in itself doesn’t pay anything right? If I understand correctly, the Darwin will need to convert that allocation into performance fees to get any monetary benefits, so it needs to keep performing even after the allocations.
How about splitting up DarwinIA into 3 “classes” (without changing the total of $5M allocation):
DarwinIA 1: Only for Darwins with Ex 7.5 - 10: $3.0M divided over Top 80
DarwinIA 2: Only for Darwins with Ex 5.0 - 7.4: $1.5M divided over Top 80
DarwinIA 3: Only for Darwins with Ex 2.5 - 4.9: $0.5M divided over Top 80
Or any variant hereof with less, or more, DarwinIA’s and/or different Ex. cut-off values.
As you can see I was asking the same 2 years ago.
It was an idea to reduce the frustration of low EX traders.
If it is not arrived in 2 years it means the dont’ want to do it.