I can see where people are coming from when engaging in this debate in support of "high trader equity"..
Just so everyone knows - I am one of those horrible, casino gambler, penny peddling Darwin providers who has just over $300 in trader equity in his Darwin currently ranking reasonably well in DarwinIA...
Unfortunately, by that logic, the Stock Market would have tanked to zero retail investors nearly 100 years ago.
If a stock were to be invested in on the basis of its Market Cap, then the likes of Warren Buffett would not exist today.
Similarly, if a Darwin - which by the way, is an investable alternative asset class - that has tremendous potential for managing larger AuM, is to be discriminated against based on the amount of money being used to "keep it running", then by that same measure every Small Cap stock company would have gone bankrupt 100 years ago.
I suspect, like me, a decent percentage of Darwin providers with low trader equity + decent investable level of VaR + good performance/timing/risk-management scores, are providing investors with "their technology" to trade larger AuM.
A Darwin with respectable VaR and scores, is by no means a "casino prop".
I see the majority of high trader equity Darwins under-performing lower trader equity accounts in those departments.
A Darwin is an asset class, the trader behind it provides the technology for its existence in the form of a strategy.
The moment it becomes a game of "who would like to create a public display of wallet sizes", I assure you that I will be withdrawing my Darwins from Darwinex, because the competitive "every talented trader gets a shot at getting real AuM" model will have been completely destroyed.
p.s. I and many others, can easily fund our accounts at Darwinex with in excess of 5-figures. Does it make our Darwins any better? No.
p.p.s. A five to six figure trader equity cannot make anyone a full-time income. Trading a $10k+ account at 100% VaR for a few months can... for a few months.
p.p.p.s. .... all of the above said with much love