The end result is the same.
There is no proven, verifiable significant boost or DIRECT CAUSAL relationship with the performance of a DARWIN or improvement of their trading behavior on account of
a multiple of equity being required to earn the maximum allocation to manage for each of the 60 slots for winners in the monthly Darwinia challenge. EQUITY issue.
or consistent Activity/Regularity being achieved each month. EXPOSURE Issue
if the goal is to have "skin in the game" and that this plays a significant role in how long and how well a Manager performs for investors then it could be explained in that way and leave out all this other talk about how More Equity and Regularity of 100% is going to make better traders..
I've read the threads on Darwinia and Activity/Regularity and their evolution, and it seems that traders would instead be put under more pressure to allocate more capital and to achieve the 100% Regularity by the end of the month. Thus encouraging them to take more than normal risk outside of their trade plan.
I try to keep thinking about how the big investment firm funds are run so that I can compare with best practices in the hedge fund / investment bank arena. The way I understand it, the manager does not have to trade with the same exposition each period as a part of the requirement. And he would only be required to have sufficient "skin in the game" once he actually has real investors, not before to attract potential investors.
Another way to do it would be to allow traders to trade the way their trade plans call for (Volume per month) and also to have the equity engaged that they like, and THEN after winning Darwinia or have Significant Assets under Management they could be called upon to have a certain percentage of the overall Funds under Management as their equity. And same with the Darwinia allocations. AFTER the allocations are offered/won. Then it would be wise to meet those requirements to be able to manage those Funds, whether they be Darwinia allocations or Investor Funds.