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.

QUA - Quantessence

Sorry but my intervention it’s not about the reasons of the DD.

I completely desagree with this:

you can say this when you’re trading your own money or trading with 1K not when you manages 1 million.

The other point I don’t like is your explanation about what happend.

Sure we can’t avoid brutal movements in forex but in the case of GBP it was sure like a rock (that in one sense or another).


Seems a bit concerning that there is nothing that indicates that you hedged your so called “bigger bet”. Surely you all knew the news was going to land on one either side of this “flipped coin”? I haven’t traded out of your Darwin yet, but the above reasoning makes me slightly nervous.

Hi @jumpergrog, @DAIICHI,

I have to admit that we underestimated the possibility of a negation of the positive developments in the Brexit negotiations by Mays surprising statement on that particular Friday. In hindsight the risk should have been lower in order to hedge against the dramatic decline the market developed as it was caught by surprise. In conclusion we did reduce the risk parameter for all GBPUSD trades. On the other hand we believe that the upcoming uncertainty will also offer chances to recover the performance.


I love this:

Of course if you’re in right side.

You have 50 % chance.

You do realize that it was the initial uncertainty (surprising statement) that caused this in the first place right and that this statement is a paradox in itself?

1 Like

I think that there could be a misunderstand here…
QUA is an ALL EA darwin right? So I can’t see anything wrong if you decided to let the EA works out as always. From another point of view it can be dangerous to lower the usual exposition now… brexit will be on the table for a long time… and risk manager will kick in anyway…

1 Like

I love that quote too:

how can I say it?

there is no RM with this type of darwin (VAR 4).

Risk Manager does not kick in only to lower the risk, but also to rise it to at least 10% VAR… so with 4 of VAR the risk manager will more then double the investment… with a VAR of 2 it will multiply it by 5… so yes there is a RM but will rise the risk and all the effort to be less “risky” will be worthless. The only way to reduce risk is to be more proactive in the trades… i.e. to have tighten stop loss.


Thanks but I know how it works , at least this one.

But a RM has the goal to protect not to encrease the sirk.

So in theorie there is an RM but in facts it is absent.

It’s like an circus acrobat that play without net.

Hum… no. 12% on a single day is not an expected behaviour with Var(10,95%) especialy when it occurs few time after migration.

Var calculation depends of Darwinex, not yours.

But I am afraid that imported track record is a very very bad behaviour proxy of behaviour after migration. That comes from you.

Any explanations ?

1 Like

Hi @CondorcetInvestment,

I’m afraid I don’t see the question in your post. Could you please elaborate?


Well, sorry for my laconic question.

Despite the fact that a logaritmic scale would be better for studying an EC (because of compound return), the behaviour of the EC seems to be differrent between before and after migration.

It could be hasard, or an effect of Var simulation during import, anything else ?


1 Like

Hi @CondorcetInvestment,

don’t worry. I just wasn’t sure about the question.

You are right that a log scale would offer a better perspective to compare the recent performance with the past performance. We are running the same strategy with slightly different risk parameters on an account that is tracked at myfxbook. Since the risk behaves linear the performance is comparable to the one of the underlying strategy of the Darwin.

However you need to keep in mind that the performance of our Darwin is the result of an evolution. We do not trade the same strategies that we did trade in 2014. We adapt parameters, gradually change the logic, add new (sub-)strategies or drop strategies that fall out of their expected behaviour. What every step in this evolution has in common is that it exploits the same market inefficiency, what distinguishes them is that each iteration in our development process approaches these inefficiencies from a different and hopefully more profitable or more risk tolerant angle.



Is this still applicable? The current DD is -28%

the clue was there :wink:

The behaviour of some investors is really hard to understand.


At least investor money topped in Jan 2018 which was before the performance fell. Maybe investors are learning…some at least.

1 Like

Well… in time with negative interest rates, Investing with a zero return it’s not so bad :joy::joy::joy:


Hello Quantessence,
could you be so kind to inform us investors what your plans are. Will there be activity soon again or did you stop?

Thanks a lot


Last time @Quantessence logged this Community was one year ago.
Zero equity and no trades since 5 months are not a good sign.

1 Like