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

Higher requirements to create darwins

Are you serious?
We have an average of 2 migrations per week almost always with an equity under 1000.

Did you get my edit?

1 Like

I am proposing two ways, equity is one and meritocracy is the other. With these options honest people without capital has an opportunity, but they have to prove some skills. Also people with money have the opportunity too but they have to risk more (this is a barrier for low quality migrations or farmers to come).

I am fine with limitations to have the right to own a darwin, and I think Darwinex should update the conditions because the current ones are pouring very low quality of darwins after several years (maybe it has been an improvement, but too slow).

I always got the picture, but I always defended to give an opportunity to the honest people without the money. I loved Darwinex because this.

I could invest more money, I just don’t feel I have to do it because, what’s the point? My goal is not making money on my own equity. My goal is to be able some day to run a steady invertible darwin. In the meantime why to risk more money? I’ll do it when I think my darwin is ready to get investors.


100% agree.
Maybe I would use different parameters but I agree with your guidelines.
Now a darwin can be created with one month of trackrecord and 100$…
We have a lot of quantity and very few quality, this is the reason it is almost impossible for investors to pick the right ones.
So let’s require more value: time or money, the basic constituents.
A darwin should be a fund not a toy.

1 Like

I doubt it owners of the company will entertain any of this.They don’t want to stop Migrations,let alone such rigorous conditions you mentioned.
I am sure they followed closely bankruptcy of Ayondo investment platform and don’t want to repeat that.
I personally have no problem with unsuccessful darwins.I only watch what appears in my personal filter,what is very popular with other investors and what is controversial here in the forum.The rest doesn’t bother me.


This rule can be exploited but in any case any investor can already use the API and find any Darwin that qualifies by this rule or any rule they see fit. Maybe we should prefer Darwinex takes what commissions they can from the farmers and the uninformed investors and give it to good traders via Darwinia and rebates and also in the form of exposure of good traders to institutional investors.

I think instead of a 3k min to slow down track record farming that simply mitigating or virtually eliminating pre IPO data is the best most fair thing to do about track record farming, but looks like maybe track record farming is not really a very significant problem after all anyways: Could disallowing pre-IPO Darwin data from all scores and contests actually encourage new good traders?

Money is the best way to fight local farmers too.
A guy can still IPO 20 darwins running on 100$ after one month and advertise the luckiest after one year closing the other 19.
Ok closed darwins are visible but how many investors care about it?
On Darwinia they solved it asking for more equity.

I thought his other 19 would be permanently visible…

Yes they are visible if you turn on a switch that is off by default.


Go to the hall of fame top down and you find enough domestic successful farmers. Not all are history until now.

That should be on by default. :grin:

Hopefully the big money investors care or will start to.

1 Like

The only really toxic track-record farmers were those exceptional migrated darwins with 100% or more profits.They were toxic for investors and fellow traders.Native farmers are visible and easily put in their place.Investors are not that dumb.Delayed native IPO that caused damage to investors?I am not aware of any,certainly not one with 100% profits.
Also,dear fellow algo traders,would you put ZXW into track-record farmers?

1 Like

If you open 10 accounts and you only turn the best one into a Darwin, you can see the other 9 which never were darwins, or you only see death darwins?

1 Like

Only darwins are visible, trading accounts are always private.

It is the reason I was suggesting this cure.

1 Like

NO, because the trader is clearly stating that ZXW is the main darwin, the same with PUL and PLF.

True traders use descriptions and their money to show wich is the flagship darwin.

I’ve got you this time!How you like to be teased?
I have him in my portfolio,but only after he passed all tests and scrutiny.


I think your purpose is the same like mine, but I don’t want to cut migrations, Darwinex needs them. I just want to give the concept ob being a Darwin more value. So, I welcome everybody to open an run an account, then becoming a Darwin should be a privilege (by meritocracy or equity).

Currently having a Darwin doesn’t have value, anyone can be. Then filtering good darwins in a not friendly platform is too hard for investors, and that IF there were a good amount of good darwins which is not true yet.


Neither I but some guys migrate their “grail”, burn and than jump out with another grail…
If you are a professional with your 500% earned on another broker you deserve ONE shot, not infinite shots.


I understand, but any proposal you want Darwinex could consider have to be one that is acceptable by them. We have to welcome all the accounts, even the potencial farmers. But, you put a bodyguard at the entrance of the Darwin world (the bodyguard is the meritocrazy or equity).

By giving the Darwin concept and entity a higher value, all trader with trade with more respect. The concept of Darwin need some branding. People has to identify a Darwin like something with added value, like any good brand having quality products Apple, Mercedes, Ferrari, Armani, Lacoste…do you get my point?


Exact and this is the reason I agree with you suggestion, money can be a compensation for short or non native trackrecords.
For example if you migrate 1 year of trackrecord you are supposed to trust your strategy, something like 2k per migrated year could compensate the lack of native trackrecord.
This is not a problem for experienced investors like me or @Tomcat that are able to avoid traps.
The whole point is adding value to the asset class, to distingush it form the mud of social trading sites.

1 Like