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

The New D-Score

Has the new D-Score any predictive value ? Because, if not, what’s the point ?, you already have the PF with que quote. Why duplicate the indicators?


Stable Rs and La score for darwins shows trader’s discipline.

Discipline forms the cornerstone of a trading system. It is the ability to stick to a set of rules.

I don’t understand what will be achieved by oversimplification of D-score formula.


They say than more that old dscore

But also they say that old IA’S does not have any predictive investable capacity by their own…

The point is:

Get better dscore - - > better shape of the darwin chart… No more noise and claims, and better mirror for big investors that do not want to know anything about IA’S

Mc, and Ex, as significance, out of dscore - - > no more noise and claims about it, and it is a way to focus in equity investment traders, possibly coming from IB ¿? with TR with less significance, because of less decisions, and perhaps investing in only one side of the market…

Now there is no limitation for this type of investing. As far I have understood, the only is 21 days without trading and minimun lenght of TR… Then if I create a Darwin now, i think with only 15 decisions in one side of the market, in only one year I will get more than 70 in dscore, with all that it does mean… And if this is migrated and after doing martingale is the perfect circle…

Let’s wait to the rules because it can not be as I have written…


The key thing is that the DARWIN quote and history already reflect indirectly the trading behaviour.
The difficulty is creating the Darwin, not the D-Score itself. The work is in the Darwin quote, and this is where we spent the years of R&D.

If you have a clean signal, the Darwin, you can trust much more any risk adjusted metric like the new D-Score. The numbers demonstrate it.
The attributes complement the D-Score, and we will improve them from now on, too.

If you use the new D-Score as the main criteria to search for the best portfolio of Darwins, the data demonstrate that only a moderate grade in Rs makes a clear difference to improve the composition of the portfolio.

Why? Because if you score poorly in any other metric and you survived to have a long track record, it means probably that is doesn’t matter. Surviving the market seems to be more important than the attributes.

I will never invest in someone with an Mc of less than 8, but it is true that this way I would had never invested in Warren Buffett’s portfolio.

If we penalize the D-Score with a bad grade in Mc, like we do today, Warren Buffett would never come to Darwinex, he would laugh at us. It might be a huge exception, but I consider it a clear example that it is much better to separate the how much (D-Score) of the how (Investable Attributes) and delegate the decision to the investors.


I agree that a long trackrecord is better than everything but what about lucky grids with a couple of years of trackrecord, now they are blessed by a good DScore.

Ok but so why to go crazy making pips from EURUSD or GBPUSD ?
Let’s buy spx500 sit and wait for 36 or 60 months , as Buffett rightly suggests! :slight_smile:


The promised podcast mini-series about the new D-Score is here, thanks for everybody’s patience!


Maybe it works better to find the best ones but what about protecting investors from the bad ones?
SCS old DScore 22 , new DScore 63
I think this is the best example to show the limits of the new “return centered” DScore.


Our position regarding migrations is not allowing any migration that makes us doubt of its procedence.
If we admit that all migrated strategies need to be penalised, it means that we should not allow them, beacuse we doubt.
Right now, we don’t validate any suspicious Darwin and with some exceptions I think we are doing it well.

I don’t think a 63 is a good score, anyway, we are now on a much better situation to improve it looking at extreme cases like SCS.

1 Like

Buffet is not a trader, he is an investor!


Well, 40% discount it’s from 60. So…


Unfortunaltelly it is not black or white.
Migrated time and return is not significant as native because of:

  1. different conditions
  2. survivorship bias

Have you changed your opinion about Pivot Darwin?

1 Like

It seems to me that the quality of the system, and the discipline of the trader doesn’t matter anymore for Darwinex, Warren Buffet has nothing in come with the way Darwinex traders trade and operate, and even how FX trading operates it is quite an appropriate comparison from any point of view.
I wonder why not remove the RM too, with the new Dscore It is the only thing that it differs Darwinex from every PAMM/ Signal selling vendor? My personal opinion is that RM is actually the worst thing that is holding investors, since quite often is worsening the performance.


The concept seems to be that this new DScore fits better top 20 or top 50 darwins.
This is true but I think those top good darwins are on the top because the current complete DScore prevented martigales to be visible and popular.
Back in 2015 there was no La and there were a couple of pupular martingales on the top: HBU and RCA

A long trackrecord works better than investable attributes I agree but it has to be REALLY long, 3-5 years while I see many darwins above 75 with 2 years.

I disagree that bad trading can be spotted on return chart, sometimes neither investable attributes are enough and we have to go to trading journal.


Really, I don’t know. I need more time to accept and analyse these changes in Dscore&Darwinia, because it is a big change, and allways big changes are difficult to accept.

I am in a strange situation… At first sight i don’t like this change, maybe because I was waiting for an improvement of current dscore. I was not ready for it.

Reading the comment of Javier, i think that it makes sense and I see their point, mainly because the concepts behind are well discussed here, asking for more stable pF, as it is this new, more rewarded the lenght of TR, less weight to the significance,… and more that we agree… I would have to push like, but I couldn’t

That is one of the reasons, that I am not convinced if last changes in RM, could prevent martingales and families, not get high dscores, in the time that they works… I think that 1 year is not enough.

But the worst for me is if this change really affect to traders to not hold creating long trackrecords. Imagine the case that a darwin after 2 years of TR realised that it is better to close the darwin and open another new, because he thinks that after another 1 year the dscore will be better, with the new with 1 year that continue creating TR and trust with 3 years, it would be really sad in my opinion.

1 Like

Thank you for all the feedback. I am sure that there are ways of improving, and we will do our best to do it.
Maybe, now that we can improve the atributes, we are in the future in a position to take them into account again, who knows. But we need some more flexibility to improve, and this D-Score is a huge improvement in this direction.
I think it will never rain for the benefit of all. In fact, we were thinking of eliminating the D-Score publicly and keep it for ourself. For us is the most confortable position because it is impossible to satisfy everyones opinion. We share an API with all data so that everyone can do what we have done.
If we decided to display it, it is because we are 100% sure of the benefit of the new D-Score for investors, and indirectly for all the community.

The only reasonable concerns that i agree with you are:

  1. How we treat migrated strategies
  2. How we treat low Ex and low Mc and a really good D-Score

The best way is to alert first time investors that a Darwin is migrated, than penalizing the D-Score for it. I dont think it is fair to penalize them. It also makes no sense commercialy for darwinex doing it. No good Darwin Provider will accept to get penalized to join Darwinex.

We will place a minimum Ex, and Mc at least to participate in Darwinia, and we will also alert first time investors of the risk of investing in such Darwins, but again, once you know what they mean, it is the investor choice to invest, and on the other hand it is really difficult to determine how to penalize the D-Score.

1 Like

I was not talking to openly penalize migrations in dscore, it was a question that they would have less points in a IA based in days in Darwinex, that would be understable, because it is clear that if they are new, it is a fact that they don’t know how the RM works.

But, I think that for most of traders, it is not a question of dscore, it is a question on how does it affect in Darwinia. Same idea could work for Darwinia with migrations and minimum days in Darwinex.


I understand you but this is an important conflct of interest.
Being fair and efficient should have the priority to being a tool to attract traders.
The same speaking about top darwins, now they have a better DScore, they are more happy and investors are more confident and invest more money.
They are more happy that their money is on a darwin with a Dscore of 70 instead of 55 … :wink:

High risk Grid trading system loss in long term but these systems gives consistent return in short to medium term.

At other signal providers platform Grid trading are most popular due to high and consistent return.

With new d-score now Grid trading systems will get high D-score and more visuality at darwinex platform.