Ok I will accept your #4 spot. BUX is very near to the High Water Mark, better D Score, better overall return, lower Drawdown, and 3 consecutive Darwinia allocations with Ranking in top 50 this month too.
I think this is a good example, and there are other examples if people would drill down into the statistics themselves, of how the Performance Metrics that Darwinex has devised are not measuring all the performance metrics in a way that will quantify "likelihood of said DARWIN to outperform in the next 6 months".
Just seems to me that there needs to be other factors quantified into the D Score if it is going to be a more useful in determining which DARWIN's to invest in for the next 6 to 12 months.
I would like to see some part of the D Score that quantifies consistently performing traders with low risk and smaller drawdowns. If I trade with small risk and consistently and I do not get placed at Top 10 of Darwinia and then there are traders who just gamble and get placed in the Top 10, would you blame me for saying that DarwinIA is not designed for serious traders??
What is Darwinia incentivizing? Attracting top talent for the long term.
Then more sophisticated high net worth investors can use Darwinex to invest in DARWIN's with Capacity/Max. estimated investment
I would suggest that performance used for DarwinIA ranking is for the last 3 months.
Average D Score.
As compared with the previous 3 months.
You would have to be consistent for 3 months in all areas, and it would be a fairer representation of a trader's performance.