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.

Last final will : a more balanced Darwinex

Going back to your idea of balanced broker.

IMO Darwinex is already quite balanced.
There are traders with a duration from 2 hours to 2 weeks.

Probably it is suboptimal for extreme scalpers and also for macro/carrytraders.
There is a program to reduce commissions but ther is nothing to reduce swaps.
At the moment with a duration of 2 days I am spending more on swaps than on commissions.
I know that improving swaps is a target for 2019.
if they want to make money as broker scalpers are better but if they want to help fund managers they have to improve the conditions for swing traders.

3 Likes

Let’s shake hands :slight_smile: quite balanced regarding trading conditions, providing “best efforts” (what I mean here is that LMAX is better in theory than in practice), plus trying to improve…

Honestly, the major point where it feels unbalanced (worse than the competition) is how the funding options are so narrow. I opened accounts at most of all major brokers along the years, and it never occured that I would not be able to deposit how much I want and how I want it, not in a fast way (right now I’m waiting for my last SEPA deposit into Darwinex and 48hours are elapsed already, counting the bank holiday of yesterday).
Darwinex is innovating in this field… but this is a real pity. I would like that more users of Darwinex backup my stance, because they complain in private sometimes but not publically.

3 Likes

I agree on funding, but finally they are starting to move to fill the gap.

1 Like

Taking 2 quickie random exemples (not the highest standards)

https://aaafx.com/deposits
https://www.icmarkets.com/en/trading-accounts/funding

Both already carry Bitcoins, Sofort, Neteller, some misc electronic money stuff, etc

Info from their support :
AAAFx

I assure you that with ICMarkets and many others, it’s the same openness of accepting funds… Darwinex is the first broker I cross that doesn’t put full efforts to take your money. This is a very charming concept but for a carritative association maybe ?! :wink: and again…


Why isn’t Darwinex doing something more about it urgently ? I don’t understand why it doesn’t become the first priority. It has made me cringe for a long time. Therefore, I’m about to join ZuluTrade (kidding)

Have a nice day :slight_smile:

2 Likes

@EvidenceAlpha
Hate to see you leave, however you’ve made a good point and your reasons are understandable.

I wish you the best and thank you so much for all your work in the community.
It is all really appreciated.

Have a blessed day.

Kind regards,

2 Likes

Not leaving, just keeping quiet until I see the light at the end of the tunnel. Take care

2 Likes

I don’t think it is charity I think more AML and other legal stuff like that.
Those broker aren’t FCA.
Credit Cards are mean to pay not to receive money.
On etoro you cannot withdraw profits on cards, only be refunded.

1 Like

Indeed, for instance I believe Bitcoin handling within the EU framework may be much more controlled + sensible.

Anyway, there are plenty of FCA brokers which leave a lot more room to card handlings both ways, beginning from IG or FXCM. I understand that maybe Darwinex doesn’t have the same facilities. Yet, as a end user, I’d be tempted to comment “not my problem, work it out” :flushed:

If you check also on AAAfx profits can be withdrawed only via wire tranfer.
Clearly this is interesting only for the minority of winners, losers can deposit all their money and lose it… :smiley:

Conversely on Darwinex you can deposit 10k and withdraw 15k so also winners are considered. :wink:

Same story with FXCM, only refund and quite slow…
“If you funded your account with a credit card or debit card, it is required to withdraw the principal amount (deposit amount) back to your credit card. The credit card issuer may take from five business days to one billing cycle (approximately thirty days) to post back to the credit or debit card used for funding.”

1 Like

In practice, card refund takes more 2-3 days than 5 but anything can happen.

About how much amount you can get back, more or just equal to the deposited amount, different scenarios exist…
Some brokers let you only withdraw the deposit amount, then anything extra by wire transfer.
Some other brokers let you withdraw profits infinitely way above the deposit amount.
Where I am now, I can withdraw the initial almost for almost free, then the next 0.5x more for a slightly higher fee, then everything above by wire transfer (more expensive but even faster back to my account)

I do not mind to mix a card deposit with a wire withdrawal when forced to. Actually, it can even be better.
Also, when I withdraw, it’s usually to take a break…

However, when I deposit, I want to trade NOW :slight_smile: I only deposit when I see a favorable configuration. Also it can happen that my trading conviction grows, or I see an extra entry possible, then I want to deposit NOW again to buff my position :slight_smile: in the very moment. Usually, I’ll get extremly mad if the crediting is delayed (some members of the support chats must remember my rants :slight_smile: )
Because there are 2 schools, either automatic crediting (rare) or requiring manual approval that can be quick. In that case, I’ll be in the live chat to push things forward so that the process goes smoothly

I discovered LMAX New Zealand. It has ready the whole cocktail I have been waiting Darwinex to offer for so long :confused:
As an offshore branch, it escapes the ESMA ruling just like JFD Overseas. No funding stories (card). Most importantly for me, it really is diverse regarding platforms/connections’ choice. I’ll be able to reuse SierraChart

————-

When Darwinex announced that it was recentering his target communication around traders, I got excited. I saw some evolution. Yet, some parts continued to lack attention despite longlasting talks around here.

I regret that Darwinex has this quant/tech/forex/algo culture way too dominant (not alone to admit it after all). Darwinex claims to address sophisticated traders, I’m sure it does well/brilliantly for that part (MetaQuotes does the job, various advanced APIs congrats, Python / R follow-up, etc).
Standing outside of that part, expressing only a couple specific needs / habits that I wouldn’t even call anything advanced but normal, I don’t recognize myself and feel left apart.

LMAX offers MultiCharts, SierraChart, NinjaTrader (through custom bridge), MT5, Quantower, proprietary web & mobile, etc. I am able to recognize this has great value and call it sophisticated.

https://www.icmarkets.com/en/forex-trading-tools/mt4-advanced-trading-tools


IC Markets and JFD (don’t care about CTrader) are offering an add-ons package from FX Blue Labs (solution dedicated to brokers only),
that comes to enhance the very minimalistic (lacking some basics) MT4/MT5 experience from factory default. I would likely not recommend 3/4 of the tools other than being a waste to trade, but the rest of it makes sense by correcting some points that MT forgot about / doesn’t deal with properly. (Against 3rd party purchases, it has the merit to exist and be clear). For instance, the “close all” button from a pluri-instrument console, the multi-screens tool, the custom order ticket, are simple worthy additions
I won’t dare to call this package sophisticated, but at least we notice they put an effort to set themselves out of the crowd…

Naked MT monopoly ? Not sophisticated for the discretionnary trader …not showing an attempt to care (vs ICM/JFD’s attitude of “just trying” to acknowledge something could be done)

On that part and that part only of Darwinex, I have been disappointed. Because I spend so many hours in front of the screen, not proxying my actions through an EA but exhausting myself manually active, I hope to feel good, comfortable and about optimized.

Moving on, until Darwinex eventually catches up, not holding any angst or regret, actually feeling quite excited about it even! Wish you the best.

1 Like

Exactly what I was explaining. Just found out JFD is now also offering to its clients this tool discussed here

That’s precisely what I meant previously (a gesture) : please show some more attention through tools (if not platform) to the neglected “sophisticated traders” that are not crossing their legs from having plugged a robot to a rustic platform :wink: Best !

Your thoughts remind me a part of my journey amongst brokers :slight_smile:

I could start by the famous question “Why Metatrader over X ?” but it isn’t neither the thread for it nor the main matter :slight_smile: .

What is clear : this platform has been widely adopted and maintained for statu quo reasons, turning any debate “impossible”.

Brokers were/are perfectly aware of Metatrader “limitations”, and have “discretely” operated/developed to maintain the… statu quo :slight_smile: .

There are a lot of (even basic) features missing in MT. I can’t avoid to use as an example the so basic "(Close and) Reverse" feature. I’ll use cTrader as an example :

https://help.ctrader.com/ctrader/trading/positions#reverse-and-double-position

As you mention it, a lot of brokers (as IC Markets) developed a lot of tools to “maintain MT”.

As examples, we could mention Admiral Markets with its trading terminal (that allows to close and reverse positions, by the way) :

Or AvaTrade with its Multi Account Manager terminal :

Anyway, the main point is to debate/know what is Darwinex planning relatively to MetaTrader as they are perfectly aware of… the end of MT4 :

One first wonder would be : "How will MT4 to MT5 migrations be handled by Darwinex ?"

Next wonder could be : "(What) Is Darwinex planning/considering (as) a next trading platform (as question is unavoidable) or are they alreading considering/taking another path (FIX API) ?"

As far as I’m concerned, I wait for more information, from Darwinex, about such “platform” :

2 Likes

As a wink from Darwinex, their last tweet :smile: :

There is reality and there are hopes and promisses.

Darinex is a CFD/spot forex broker like Alpari, FxOpen and Tickmill.
Darwinex isn’t a futures broker.
Darwinex isn’t a real stocks broker.
Darwinex isn’t a crypto exchange.

2 Likes

This new article is the perfect follow-up to such comment (“statu quo”) :

1 Like

Unfortunatelly we have to deal with the status quo.
Turbine was much better than reciprocating engine, but the second was the status quo and still is.


We are here to create a trackrecord, a long process even with the present platforms, it would be too long if we continue to wait the next one.
1 Like

I agree. Not enough flexibility for traders to accelerate when necessary and good to do so

I’m sorry I’ll be critical again. My aim is to give constructive remarks. If I wasn’t loving Darwinex, I wouldn’t be so upfront sincere.

Initially, I am quite concerned that the indices are treated more inequally than the forex :

  • indices not supported by the FIX trading API atm, which doesn’t help to approach developpers for an integration of the Darwinex line (partial interest instead of full). The availability of ZeroMQ may appear as a compensation that makes up for forgiveness but alas cannot be considered as a substitute. There are well established vendors who will only work from one standard to streamline support within an existing product and that is FIX. If we’re down to hybrid bridging towards MetaQuotes, instead of coding something special from scratch (ZeroMQ), people can use futures platforms+feed, even simulated, on a MT5 futures account w/ dual login from CQG that permits to trade multiple platforms at the same time, then use a local copier between MT5 futures and MT4 FX-CFD. That’ll require minimal work and provide by default a very advanced and flexible experience, rather than creating an own custom solution, when not deploying an army of coders for 10 years (what did SierraChart or NinjaTrader to arrive at their level of interface sophistication). Yet, this remains plumbing work, not optimal. Many clients only enjoy plug’n’play.
    Since the Darwins API has immensely progressed, I hope the FIX trading API will be completed so it doesn’t lack pieces of Darwinex

  • micro version of some indices, but not on other ones (DowJones - very popular, ASX, Nikkei), making it for an uneven balance of margins/leverage diversification if aligning the trading management at the micro level

Now, let’s dig deeper than from the surface with more statements (plz correct any point if wrong, I don’t pretend to know it all or speak error-free) :

  • in reality, LMAX could provide mini and regular sizes of contracts available for indices. Fact, the average spreads of the regular contracts are narrower than the mini versions. The VWAP price on larger volume is also better, but that is of almost no concern to any average Joe trader (re AuM scaling, you tell me)

  • Darwinex sets their own commissions on indices, independantly from a contract size (there is only 1), based on volume. I like this non-staging. The price tag is good (in and out of the 2 rebate schemes)

  • the variable spreads of LMAX are more or less consistent over time, at least that can be attested from the past. There are historical periods (or intraday moments) where it can widen “off track”. Some measures are public.

For those who don’t know, in comparison, the Micro E-Mini futures have okay tight stable spread but quite really big commissions compared to the CFDs . Arguably, larger spreads + lower commissions for the same all-in execution price is less trading efficient : example, stoplosses trigger more easily.
From analysis : when the spreads of LMAX are normal/low, let’s report that the regular indice CFDs can be more interesting to trade than the Micro E-Mini futures, in terms of all-included cost and VWAP price. The visible near TOTP liquidity of regular LMAX CFDs can even be above the one of the large future contracts !
However, the Micro E-Mini futures tend to always beat the mini LMAX indices.

  • the Darwinex indices that now have micro sizing enabled track the spead / liquidity of the LMAX mini indices. Before, it was linked to the regular contract ? The DowJones still appears to be

Conclusion : no doubt that the micro indices are nice for $500-$1500 deposit traders and I guess for Darwins’ investability, or also for the traders with more money when it helps to fine-tune money management and tactics.

However, when you’re filled on a spread which can be some % higher, that is quite a dragging performance hit for active traders. Less performance, more drawdown = also less attractivity if showcasing
There’s something way worse than a bigger execution cost, which is missing on some fills. Yesterday, I was trading both sizes of the DowJones CFD, when it arrived near the very bottom of the day (26260), I had a reverse planned there. The LPs are smart, knowing their job well, applying modulation tricks if they really see fit, they widened the spread from 2(regular)/3(mini) points to up to 5/10 briefly at this key turning point. Luckily, I was in front of the screen, I noticed this ‘manipulation” and reversed manually with a poorer exit/re-entry. Without this manual intervention, my target+limit entry wasn’t filled even though well placed, in case of normal trading conditions. It would have been without spread widening. Beware, I’m not complaining, just describing (and admitting) a real exchange type event.
Anyway, missing an exit or a reverse from a decrease in quotes quality can be drastically damaging (I lived through it more times than I wish I had). The micro spread is almost double the one of the YM I take for reference. If I were swing trading once every 2 days, I wouldn’t mind, but it gets problematic at 5-10 trades per day. Too much of so-so trading costs consume a non negligeable part of the average daily range. Darwinex is aware of it, we were served studies on the impact of trading costs.
It leads me to state that ANY day I’m choosing bigger contracts over ones which trade worse. I feel just about comfortable on the mini Dax but barely at all on the mini DowJones (for now avoided by Darwinex). My opinion evolved …now I wish you’ll keep it at this size and conditions !

From here, maybe you saw it coming, all things considered I am regretting the micro indices, judging from the trader’s side (even more so when the activity won’t be kept at a minimal rotation).
I wish Dwx could offer both contract sizes (past and present, w/ matching differential conditions) concurrently, instead of enforcing one. That would let the trader have the choice where the trade-off will happen between advantages and inconveniences. I know that personally I 200% prefer to have more robust spread liquidity and fills than low margins and increments. I’m not saying it lightly, this is a primary concern.

NB: I’m skeptical about the argument that opposes CFDs against futures (which would justify the micros’ existence alone). Both instrument classes have own specific selling points. More than that, like explained earlier, there will be possibilities to link the trading of both (intra Darwinex) while hiting on both the liquidity to deploy AuMs and limit divergence. Therefore, they should be treated hand in hand imho, not versus

2 Likes

I voiced my opinion too much to my (and yours I’m sure) taste lately, not improving the image of the grumpy old french, also not reflecting the good I think of Dwx. It is distracting me from concrete stuff. I think I wrote it all. Less talk from here

edit : now I realize that MT5 and MT4 are “cabled” differently. I also think something has changed under MT4 (looking at the micro Dax data). It gets confusing…
I guess if all micros can be released under MT4 and LMAX bigger contracts implemented under MT5, that could be a sweet spot, letting the customer choose between 2 opposite kind