As I have already mentioned, a Darwin 4.xx is a fully modeled structured product, with no real track-record prior to early April 2017.
And in any case, a ‘notional’ Darwin so the one that is listed on the exchange, is by definition entirely virtual.
Only the Darwins in the investor portfolios can claim a true track-record.
The credibility of Darwins 4.xx listed on the platform, lies entirely on the quality of the modeling, or to use a common language, the reliability of the back-test they are.
Now I have just found a rough fault in the modeling of the divergence in the emblematic case of Darwin DCD.
This Darwin suffered from a very big divergence problem, with at least a 30% difference in historical yield between the notional Darwin and the replicated Darwin.
So the positive historical divergence displayed on the new Darwin constitutes a problem of credibility in my opinion. See an ethical problem.
Here is a screenshot of the history of my real portfolio that proves that the problem of divergence on DCD is real, and that explains that I am slightly revolted when I see a positive difference on the new Darwin!