I think it is obvious that it would be a conflict of interest.
What you’re suggesting is to transform an exchange “trader<->investor”, into a store “trader<-investor”, a place where the traders with more money would be able to convince as much investors as possible, not thanks to good trading, but thanks to “flashy things”. Let’s put lights, and banners, and advertise the darwins to make them to seem better, despite the bad results. Let’s hire designers to design a “darwin’s homepage”, with a logo and a team of designers to make a darwin to seem a better one. And so on.
When I go to the supermarket, I know that they are going to do anything to convince me to buy. My movements are recorded and analyzed, to know how to make me buy more things. And that’s not fair for customers.
Darwinex doesn’t need filters to “impress potential investors”. Darwinex need filters to show, in equal conditions, the darwins capabilities. When someone’s trying to impress other guy, is to take some kind of advantage over him/her. Impressing potential investors could be good for the trader, and really bad for an investor, because he wouldn’t compare fairly between traders. What you’re suggesting would put the traders into a different kind of competition: not to be the better trader, but to be the most known trader to attract more money.
The only people that should be able to access to that data (where investors/traders click more, how they move across the page…) should be Darwinex themselves, to improve the user experience.
I think it is ok for a trader to know how many people has seen his darwin, that won’t harm (although I think it is useless, at the end). But making something like facebook advertisement, letting traders analyze where the “customers/investors” come from, even segregating (why not?) by gender, amount of money in darwinex, and so on, is obviously a conflict of interest.