CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 66 % 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.

Trader's Equity Should Factor into Overall Point Scoring & DARWINIA

Probably it doesn’t exist.
I think this rule will fix the problem but I am not able to be happy about it.
It is a compromise between skill and wealth, because pure skill is too difficult to spot.
The Darwinian way hasn’t been enough without the traditional way.
Dodgy traders and traditional investors forced Darwinex to pollute the original vision.
It is sad.

1 Like

90% of my earnings come from Darwinia, @DarwinexLabs is going in and out and his result is negative.


I do not have an opinion so catastrophic @CavaliereVerde

I think that Darwinex reacted quickly increasing amount of prizes and the number.

It is very important in the short term that they input the other proposal of letting add the investment in our own Darwin.

The topic of the var can wait in the short term, because I think that could be more controversial

To create every business it is necessary to invest a minimun equity.

Regarding the fault of traditional investors, then it is my fault also, because I am one of them. And I think that you are almost with me, because I remember that you had a minimun equity in your rules to invest, hadn’t It?


You are right.
Probably their initial vision was too good for real people, too advanced for everyone, including me/us.

1 Like

I have read all 214 posts and been thinking what to say. Again it has been quite charged discussion.
Last time we had something like this was when Darwinex moved clients money to different bank.
I made quick judgement back then and later accepted that it was not right thing to do. So I cooled and then posted this.

I hoped that my post/feedback on that issue would be implemented for the future decisions too. But I think that hasn’t happened as we have another heated debate here.

So here is my opinion. I agree that change in DarwinIA has been needed. What I find unfortunate is the type of change and how it has been announced.
All this heated debate could have been avoided if Darwinex decided to use better communication and give more time for changes to be implemented. Also I understand that the decision is ultimately up to Darwinex but this issue affects directly trader’s profits and therefore it could have been discussed first with traders in some way before final decision has been agreed. Maybe there could have been some type of survey or something.

Also I don’t fully agree with the new change but something had to be done. The way DarwinIA was functioning was very bad business deal for Darwinex and amazing for traders. Instead of making this post very long I will explain my position on this in new thread.

This new decision results in ‘‘taking’’ money from traders. Darwinex gave traders way too much to start with and now when they are trying to somehow consolidate so their bottom line is not affected too much, traders are protesting. It’s understandable.

So my message to other traders. Darwinex gave you too much in DarwinIA competition. Do not get angry because now if you don’t put more money in your trading account you may lose some allocations. Wait few more weeks and Darwinex will come up with something better.


I agree that increasing equity should not increase the quality of the individual trader.

But maybe with the average trader, we could find some correlation, or perhaps not be so sure.

I have extracted this data from the platform. Attached the average results of the darwins with more than 12 d-period (D-EXP=10) of every frame in the last 2 years period. It seems that there is a difference between equities higher or lower of 2K.


This comment is worth more than 5 spanish podcasts!! :sunglasses:

Thank you !!



I egree with your numbers even there can be some hiden factors . Does the closed darwins figure in the overall number?

More, we can’t separate before and after ESMA changes etc.

Despite this, the probleme for me reside elswhere.

Many traders come to darwinex attracted by darwinia.

There are many exemples of traders distributing their signal(s), in other social platforms.

This change make darwinia much less profitable for them.

So even we can imagine that a number of traders are going to bring more money , it’s a reality that many others will quit darwinex.

Or these traders , good or bad, are a source of comissions for darwinex.

The question which we will never get an answer is: how much darwinex can afford to lose traders.

Can they survive with a limited number of good traders?

For me darwinia should have never existed.

Many darwins under 1000 are forward tests.
It happens with me and my CVL .
It happens also with others that manage more darwins like @Pulse07 and @integracore2 .
If it works for me and other communicative traders it can work for the population.

It is consistent with my initial rule as investor : equity>2000
Now I lowered it to 1200 trying to fine tune .
It confirms also my exit strategy of DScore<55


The closed darwins are not there, because I have filtered since 1 euro to avoid 0 equity.

1 Like


There were more, attached what happens if we filter with a minimun period of 365 days in darwinex (avoiding migrations)

1 Like

Another interesting chart (but I doubt that we can gat it), would be the number of darwins with high capital that have failed.

Anyway the only manner for darwinex to show that the concept works is to make public investors portofolios in gain.

Going back to this.
As investors we dont’ have to be fair, we have to be profitable.:slight_smile:

As you pointed out with your last reserch, a filter on equity makes sense.
Clearly such filter will leave out the (very few) skilled traders working with less than 1000 but our goal is to make money not to talent scout.

1 Like

With all these comments and charts that I have been sharing I don’t try to convince anyone of anything. My objective was to make a pragmatic aproach to analyse the circunstances that Darwinex had to take the decision.

I do not want to burn anybody, simply I share what I have found, and now I can have my own opinion.

These are the non-populists facts:

  1. Almost 60% darwins with less than 1k equity, and if I am not wrong, with a VAR lower than 20% could imply maximun 5-10 euros/month, and could be less with rebates…

  2. Investors are less attracted to invest in lower equities darwins. Less than 1k equities have 7% of the total investment.

  3. The performance of the average trader with less than 1k is worst than with more than 1k equity

  4. 60% clients that attract 7% investment, and surely I can guess that their trader comissions generated are lower than this 7%.


This is a good question.
It seems to me that MOST of the total investors on Darwinex mainly concentrate on Top 50 or so DARWINS.
The filters for the below categories do help investors find other good strategies that have not received exposure, but it remains to be seen if the total AuM at Darwinex increases so that the share of investment reaches sufficiently to other new strategies to motivate emergent traders to stay with Darwinex long enough and keep their capital at Darwinex long enough for development and improvement on all levels to continue so that Darwinex will thrive and add value more and more to the “Mini Hedge Fund by retailers” space

Under the Radar
On Fire

1 Like

I think when this month end, we will see if actual total allocation is more than 4M or less than, I donot have exact and precise numbers but I feel maybe less, if this will be the common senario in future, I hope Darwinex can put a bit more for potential pool of allocation so making actually total prizes around 4.5M as before we have guranteed 4M…or maybe can get 4.5M fixed, but extend to 61…ranking Darwins,if the top 60 cannot consume the 4.5M, still maintain a incentive to invest more in Darwin accounts.



Did the traders have the $2000 or more since they opened the account or did they put additional money in their equity after they got better returns?

It is very understandable you put more money in your account when you have good returns…doesn´t it make sense? And if it does, those charts would be wrong too, right?

Anyway, I am agaisnt this change for one reason. Darwinex yelled very strong for years that Darwinia was the big difference between them and the rest of brokers. They say in Darwinex any trader regardless the equity had the same opportunity to play the big leagues based in meritocracy that was basically evaluated by D-Score (the big thing). Now that statement is false.

Darwinex has not deliver what they promised. And this is the point for me, they have lost credibility.


Honestly, Darwinex have been increasing Darwinia´s pot along the years, and more and more darwins got the opportunity to get AUM, that´s been amazing. Nobody asked for that, but they did it and it´s been very appreciated.

Also they have made some changes along the way, that is fine (or maybe not), but everybody still had the same opportunity and conditions.

Now, this change is completelly different. This new turn is breaking the principles of Darwinia, where equity is rewarded (equity is not a skill).

We are talking about investors here, but we are forgetting this change has nothing to do with investors, it is for Darwinia, so this change is related to Darwinia prizes and Darwinex risk.

Investors have their own rules to invest, some will see the equity while others won´t care about it and will check other parameters. And anyway every investor is free to put their money whatever they want, right?

So, why Darwinex is doing this change breaking all the promises and principles they started with?

The reasons they have given don´t convince me, do they convince you?

1 Like

That is the point, the traders KNOWS that his strategy works and it is not just luck.
Who knows the strategy and its quality better than the trader?
If a traders keeps trading peanuts with a decent trackrecord it means that there is something wrong.


What doesn´t mean that those traders had worse performance when they had smaller equity.

But it is just a fast analysis of the charts.

Anwyway, I am against this change because Darwinex has change de game, the game they started with and what they promised to the world.

Now Darwinia is not giving equal opportunity to everybody, that´s not fair, and that´s my point on this matter. Many people will be really dissapointed.