CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 66 % 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 contest is hardest than ever before!

Yes maybe he is a good trader but JHJ is also a good example that you can win also with a lucky quarter not just a lucky month.
Sideways semester +good/lucky quarter and you have a winner, maybe deserved maybe not.

Darwinia 2.0 with months and allocation has been working vey well for 2 years, with cash prizes there is the concrete risk to go back to Darwinia 1.0 that we had on 2015 with darwins 10 times worse.

Now you are prizing 9 traders anf 1 lucky gambler, before it was the opposite, we have to go forward.
Current quality is a result of 2 years of allocations and one year of reloaded. :wink:

2 Likes

At the moment…
It is only the first month with cash dividends and we can already notice some “unlikely” systems that were missing since many months.

I am for losers turning to winners, not for loser necromancers raising the dead with some magic martingales, to produce a lucky month or quarter.
This is the reason IMO averaging to a quarter isn’t the solution.

4 Likes

I agree with it, that´s whay I´ve been suggesting to average the three last months to rank Darwinia, so no one lucky month is enough. But I´d decrease the weight of D-Score and Exp. Why a 6-7 months darwin with a good averaged last 3 months can´t qualify for Darwinia, while an old Darwin just because Exp 10 and medium D-Score can quality with an ¨ok¨month?

I´d consider Performance atribute like the most important, and penalized underlying looser strategies.

Performance, performance, performance…

1 Like

@ignacio, Then maybe it´d be better don´t allow Darwins below Exp 10 to quality for Darwinia, so instead being frustrating for promising Darwins, it´d be a motivation to be persistent…

Now, that there are many new migrated darwins coming from nowhere (from other brokers, of course) and since first day having Exp 10 and high D-Score, and a new Darwin starting from scratch at Darwinex has to wait minimum of one year to have Exp 10, it gets even worse…¨it is not good, and not fair¨…promising darwins should have some short time motivation…one year just to have an opportunity is too much.

And I fully understand Darwinex pursue good traders, the best ones, but if you frustrate the promising Darwins in the process, maybe something have to be changed…

And what would be the advantage?
Darwinia lists 2000 darwins and prizes top 48 .
Many darwins won even with Ex 7 or Ex 8 .
Everything is progressive not black or white.

I question why if you are having a darwin with Exp 10 and you cancel that Darwin or open a new one, you should carry that Exp to any other Darwin you have, but Darwinex said NO.

However, currently there are a bunch of new migrated Darwins bringing their accounts from other brokers and they have Exp10 since first day. I don´t understand that logic.

So, formerly it was hard to quality to Darwinia if you were a promising darwin, nowdays it is just impossible.

Darwinia was my motivation, now it is my frustration…something is wrong lately. And it is not the competition is harder, it is I don´t see it is fair anymore.

Also the change from 20%VAR to 10%, make it even harder and worse. So, now if you don´t have a very low VAR, your darwin is severely penalized. I see my underlying strategy (that is the REAL strategy) and looks much better than the Darwin, and I don´t gamble, I trade…I think there are many investors wishing to make 100% on ther money (per year), what is possible in the real strategy but almost impossible for a darwin…

Forex shouldn´t be ¨so safe¨, Forex involve risk itself, but now Darwinia looks straight-jacket…Forex is for investors who like risk and emotions, otherwise go to Treasury Bonds…10%VAR is way low…my two cents.

I am not a fan of migrations but an honest migration shows the same consistency than a native trackrecord.
What matters is the account, the account represents you curriculum vitae, your best product, your ability to beat and endure the market over time.

1 Like

I have taken time to go through the list of Darwins that normally wins allocation in DarwiniA competition and one thing stands out, their respective D-Scores are always greater than 60.

I understand perfectly that as an Investor, Darwinex already have their in house rules on how they want to invest their money. However, it actually makes no sense listing a lot of Darwins in the competition when it’s clear that there won’t be any allocation to them even if they have high returns for the month or have high activity rate. As long as their D-Scores are less than 60, they have less /no chance.

Therefore, my suggestion is for Darwinex to be specific on the ‘How to participate?’ tab in DarwiniA and to state clearly under the D- Score that the D score must be greater than or equal to 60. This will ensure traders with less D-Scores no longer have false hope of winning an allocation as well as being fair to such traders.

1 Like

It depends on the average quality of the darwins.
We are over 2000 darwins and 214 have a DScore higher that 60 .

If I look to my portfolio of 24 darwins, 22 have a DScore higher than 60.

Probably 6 months ago 55 was enough, and maybe in 6 months 65 will be needed.

Rules are the same since April 2017 and were very similar also before.

@CaValiereVerde, Please stop merging topics indiscriminately. This was made in a suggestion area and should not be merged and also is different from the topic it was merged to. My suggestion to Darwinex is to stop listing every Darwin in DarwiniA competition when they have already a rule in place that will not favour lots of Darwins. If 214 Darwins have D-score more than 60, It makes sense to see only those Darwins than what is currently obtained in DarwiniA.

2 Likes

Darwinex should also list all Darwins and their current position which have an allocation, regardless of D-Score and current position.

If I sort DarwinIA by allocation today, there are very few Darwins in the top showing profit and an allocation for May 2018 against previous months.

Edit:
I also think that there should not be a change neartime until there is more experience with the ESMA margin requirements and the current rules on DarwinIA. I also see Darwins there with a D-Score less than 60 and an allocation.

We already have three discussions to complain and suggest about Darwinia, and the content is almost the same…
Your observation was more ralated to “hard” than to “unfair” or “odd” . :slight_smile:

Having said that I don’t see any advantage in displaying only the first 200 or 300 darwins a apart from saving some computational power.

1 Like

When I’m trading and know that I can only participate in DarwiniA when I have above 60 D score. It’s a totally different psychological mindset than what is currently obtained.
@Journalist, those 2 Darwins with less than 60 Dscore cannot be part of the population as they can be referred to Outliers. The ‘How to participate’ in DarwinA is completely skewed based on what is currently obtained in DarwinA.

2 Likes

There are 8 Darwins with less than DScore 60 in top48 today.
Probably it is luck, every month there is a lucky part.
If you are lucky, you return 15% in one month and you are allocated, I think you will be encouraged to refine your strategy and turn luck into skill.

1 Like

I find 21 Darwins with an existing (!) allocation of 90k or more, I didn’t search further for smaller allocations.
All Darwins with an allocation must be shown, otherwise it is starting to be dubious.

As I cannot research there when they won their allocations, I stopped there.
If I also could see whether they made money on their allocation (retained amount) or not, that would be a much more wothful feature than cutting the list. But it is not so important that I open a thread on suggestions for it, other things are much more important to solve.
I’d also like to see the retained investor fees of a Darwin, which is also not disclosed yet.

I think DarwinIA wouldn’t be attractive anymore for new traders to go to Darwinex, if there is a hard limit on D-Score.

A much more useful point would be to cut D-Score for migrated strategies at 30 when they come to Darwinex as suggested here some weeks ago, and the rest must be earned at Darwinex, also for DarwinIA.

1 Like

Last time I counted manually there were 140 darwins allocated.
The philosophy is that everything is listed and everything is ranked.
I admit that the contest is an additional source of stress/frustration but it was the same for me 2 years ago, even worse with old D-Levels.
Trading public to be a money manager is more difficult than trading privately.
More rewards more temptations to resist, more discipline required.

5 Likes

I just counted 7 Darwins in the top 48 of DarwinIA with a price less than 100 which means that the Darwin didn’t recover its DD since beginning until now.

I also counted only 10 new prices on the top 50 of the top allocations, now I wonder whether this was just a bad month for the majority of the top allocations or whether we will have a paradigma change on DarwinIA in the next months.

I also see without counting that it wouldn’t be a good selection to invest in the top allocation of May because a significant majority didn’t make profit in May.

And I hope I counted right :wink:

2 Likes

Seems like high VAR trader have a disadvantage with DarwinIA. First they suffer bigger DD’s within a month so the min. Balance (which seems to be the basis of the allocation?) is lower and 2nd their often use less money but still create more commissions/take more risk that other low VaR Trader. I think traders above 10% VaR should get a multiplicator of their balance :wink:

And i still dont want my allocation this month… lol :confused: what a waste.

1 Like

You had to prepare for it in advance… :wink:
Even if net risk is the same, with more equity you inspire more trust in investors and you show that you are trusting the broker.