CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 64 % 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.

Migrations and trackrecord farming

In my opinion investors that order darwins by return deserve to lose money.
If it were up to me default ordering would be by AUM, I am using AUM.

If it were up to be I would stop to accept migrations.
There are succesful migrations but 99% are useless and misleading.
We have at least a migration per week and how many of them delivered what they promised?
Less than 10 in 5 years of Darwinex.

1 Like

I wonder why most migrated strategy stops working on this platform. Is it because the previous track record is manipulated? If yes, then there should be a better control/regulation for migration.

Any money lost by investors on any darwin (due to fake track record and other fraud) is the loss to every genuine darwin and probably also not good for the Darwinex business model and reputation.

I do expect some strict steps and scrutiny in interest of investors because D-score is not enough (or not performing as investors have expected: just a point of view).

5 Likes

You are preaching to a church man.I wish owners of Darwinex could gather courage to cut this Migration thing,especially now,that it was shown has easily and cheaply MT4 trackrecord can be created.

1 Like

They are not fake it is just survivorship bias, you farm 100 accounts and you show only the luckiest to seem 10 times better than you are.

https://zorro-project.com/manual/en/tutorial_scam.htm
This is an example with martingales but you can do that with every strategy.
You can copy the same strategy to 20 different accounts with different inceptions and than you migrate the one that started on a low.
The trader chose what to show and when to show it.

Traders show only what is convenient for them to impress noobs.
Even if that return is real it is not significant beacuse we never know the whole picture.
Many “traders” show their luckest stuff and they neither know why that trackrecord is winning, often it is just luck, a very above average result shown just on highs, ready to revert to the mean or ready to revert to a persistent loser.

Not significant, not relevant, not correlated to the skill of the trader, and so not correlated to future return, public and invested return that is all that matters.

1 Like

Some are outright scam and some are trackrecord farming,as @CavaliereVerde explained.

So how can Darwinex tackle this issue?

Nobody can defeat survivorship bias, it exists with everything, stocks students.

They could make the life a bit more difficult to trackrecord farmers doing this:

1. only one migration per user, to limit external farming
2. public accounts for every darwin provider, to limit local farming (like before reloaded)

It is mainly up to investors to investigate traders to learn their transparency and honesty.

2 Likes

The easiest way would be: close migrations for investors for 3 or better 6 months.

An additional improvement would be if the broker is named and rated where the migration came from and show where the best, worst and average Darwin from this broker ended or is found currently.

There are great differences between an offshore broker and an account with leverage 1:400 and an ESMA account regarding possible trading volume and margin calls.

Darwinex also has a different broker fee and rebate model than others.

Last not least is Forex not a common regulated market, other ECN broker have different extreme prices and differences from arbitrage and order execution.

These are aspects which can kill the performance of another broker account coming here, all without cheating.

Luck can last for 3 or 6 months as we have seen on SCS .
Luck lasted for 2 years on DLF .

The reality is that migrations were necessary 3 years ago, now they are just a trap for noobs.

Darwinex cannot know the situation on other brokers but in my opinion if you want to be a provider you have to waive your privacy and show every live and active account, to prove you are not farming trackrecords.

I don’t like this proposal in regards to forward testing. I’m mostly an investor and I suck at trading but I still try to create a strategy from time to time. I would never create a Darwin from these fails but I still have the romantic vision that I might be able to create a working strategy one day. I wouldn’t be happy having to show my learning mistakes but I’d for shure open a strategy for investing if I think that it works. I would not want to take testing to a different platform just to hide it because I find analysing the statistics very helpful.

I’d be happy though if Darwinex would stop allowing migrations.

2 Likes

You can forward test with demo and traders using more accounts or darwins to forward test con write it on the description, if you don’t write it it means you dont’ know what will be your flagship and you are farming.

This is not a farm:
https://www.darwinex.com/username/Pulse07
This is not a farm:
https://www.darwinex.com/username/integracore2

There is nothing bad in testing with many accounts, the bad thing is when you hide it to give a distorted perception of your edge.

My problem is that I behave differently on demo. I’m aware that this indicates a lack of rules but I’m pretty much at the beginning when it comes to trading. Trading live, even if it’s a small account, totally boosts my discipline and I seem to learn a lot faster.

1 Like

OK I just read your edits indicating the non-farms. But. These are actual Darwins even if flagged as ‘development, do not invest’. Darwins already have to be shown and cannot be hidden. I’m happy with that. I just don’t want to be forced to show my live and/or active trading accounts that I never made to a Darwin.

Demo and real accounts behave different, currently up to10%, if you use can EA. That can make a loser out of a profitable EA and Vice versa.
If your trading only with your fingers the difference is less.

You will lose the wrong providers if you force them to publish all accounts, besides Darwinex will never do that. It’s against any privacy protection.

I was asked for a solution and this is my suggestion.

You want to manage OPM so you waive your privacy.

Migrations are only the top of the iceberg.
What prevents a farmer to open 10 accounts with 100$ on Darwinex and show/darwinize the luckiest after one year?
Is that fair for investors?
Is that representative of the skill of the trader?

1 Like

At Darwinex it is suspicious if an account is suddenly published after months. That must not be the result of account farming, but it is possible.

You don’t know whether a migrated account is the result of account farming or the trader just found Darwinex.

What Darwinex should do is show the migration date as a warning when you want to invest as they do with divergence. That warning should stay for at least 3 or better 6 months or close the Darwin for investors for the same period.

THA has its first investor after 3 weeks after migration with a minimum investment. I assume it was the most successful Darwin for more than a year. Investors made more than 500k with it if the hall of fame is not feeded with DarwinIA here. That would not have happened if you restrict migrations too hard.

Exact and that was 3 years ago, same story for LVS.
What was necessary 3 years ago is not so necessary today, everyone remebers success stories, and what about money lost with failures like AUA ?
Investors are losing money, do you want reduce that loss and increase the credibility of the asset class?
40 darwins per week and 1 migration per week give credibility and value?
I dont’ want to prevent a George Soros to migrate 10 years of trackrecord from Tickmill but for every Soros there are 100 farmers ready to market their illusion.

and they will continue to. all these suggestions are somehow to prevent dumb investors losing money. they will continue to gamble regardless.

I do not think there is proof migrations detract from investment in my Darwin or others. if there were no migrations, I do not think investors would change behaviour.

market educators who try to “do the right thing” and teach realistic trading , have empty forums.

it is a necessary part of investor maturity, to get burnt on migrations and dreaming. just like it is a necessary part of learning to trade to make all the mistakes every other trader has and all the mistakes everyone warned you prior

4 Likes

So do you think migrated grails have not distracted money from native long trackrecords like NTI PLF WFJ
Numbers like 400% 1000% are very attractive for noobs, migrations like THA attracted serious money but lately IMO migrations are more a danger than a growth opportunity.

If you remove the migrated part from HFD and SYO they are still very good darwins…

1 Like

Migrations are a chance to attract successful strategies, Darwinex does not have enough.

The disadvantage of native Darwinex accounts is still that migrations can start with a D-Score of 70 , while native accounts start with about 14. That could also be changed that the migrated history does not count for the Darwinex evaluation.

3 Likes