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

[Reidar1932]

I would suggest with increasing equity for a trader - to increase the allocation of more than 4MM, that would be fair. Of course this is at the discretion of the creators.

[MatPed]

When I read this news, my first thought was: "Darwinex is trying to cut their Darwinia marketing costs without saying it". Hopefully I am wrong...

[MatPed]

On the other hand it makes sense that Darwinia rewards more the traders that invested more, Finally Darwinex is a Broker... Is becoming more a "fidelity program"...

[OakLadder]

That's a good question. @CavaliereVerde has thought about moving money from his investor account to his trading account.

[CondorcetInvestment]

think that the moral of the story is: "will you invest 100.000 euro on a trader that is moving only 500 euro"?
Darwinia will become more interesting for a potential investor.

• You want me to invest 100.000 Euro in your fund and you dont invest more than 500 ?
• Yes, it is about diversification : I dont want to loose at the same time your money and my money...

[yhlasx]

I am actually interested in the past performance of darwinia contest portfolios - Like, what were net returns/losses for each month's darwinia allocations after 6 month has elapsed? Is there anyway to see it without going through history and manually reconstructing what the returns would have been?

Darwinex, as per their blog post, "walks the talk", and as a sign of trust in their own algorithmic methods, invest their own money - and I am sure I am not the only one who is curious about the actual dollar profit/cost results of this trust.

[CavaliereVerde]

With a simple filter we can find that today we have 827 darwins under 500 .
I can't believe tha all these traders are so poor, so it is a problem that needs to be solved.
Many traders diversify their money on 20 brokers or keep thier savings in their bank, not the right way to make a serious business with Darwinex.

[GAlbano76]

In the past (2017) I reconstructed 3-4 months of allocation and the conclusion was that overall (including the commission generated) they were sometime in small loss, sometime in small gain.

[MatPed]

@CondorcetInvestment I share your points. But, if this is the case, just say it...

[CavaliereVerde]

As stated by @OakLadder there will be a involution of trader-investors like me .

I earned nice fees these month but if it had not been so I had been forced to close my investor account to fund my trading accounts.

[JJENSLOPFAM]

I agree that it is a measure in the right direction for the medium-long term.

It is a very brave decision, justified by their firm conviction that the right thing is done for the future of the Darwinex market, but in the short term it will make a lot of noise and complaints, some justified because the provider has only one Darwin and has no economic possibilities to increase the equity (1), and others not so much, how the one with 10-15 darwins with little equity (2), or simply another one that does not want to expose more money in a broker (3).

Psychologically we all complain when a measure reverses our rights, which in many cases, like this, are more privileges, than rights. I do not remember what the prizes were before the last increase of Darwinia, but they would not be very different from what could be achieved now with a smaller equity of 2,000 or 3,000 euros.

Considering this, as @CavaliereVerde said, it would have been better to make this change coinciding with an increase in the total volume of the darwinia prize. It is not the same not to let to access something, that to lose the right / privilege.

I share the intention to avoid cases like (2) and (3), and I understand what Darwinex wants to avoid, but I think we should think about how to compensate those cases (1) in which I share and understand some complaints that the change is not completely fair, and it could go against the spirit of Darwinex's origin.

It is true that the possibility of receiving the prize is not lost, it only limits it, but the limitation avoids dreaming of a large number of traders. For that reason, I think that a fairer proposal would be not to include those suppliers that only have one Darwin in this limitation, at least during a certain period of transition to check how and how many it affects. Of course, this advantage could not be per user, it would be by ID card, because instead of multiple darwins, we could find multiple users.

I sincerely think that it is not a change to save money of the prize. I think that Darwinex thinks that they will reach the objective of increasing equities of the winners, and that is why there is not proposal of redistribution of the lost prizes.

[TheCheetah]

DarwinIA is not a hint for investors to pick DARWINS, but an encouragement for traders to trade consistently. Why the Equity, sudenly ? A way to reduce marketing impact cause Darwinex is now known ,

[OutsideTheBoxHK]

@CavaliereVerde by the way, I'd like to know what you plan to do in your situation.
I just saw that you have 3 DARWIN's.
The best one KVL is smoking hot.
Taking in $520,000 of Darwinia allocations and ranked #5 this month.
With $3400 equity.
Nice job.
Do you think your equity is great enough?

[OutsideTheBoxHK]

yes @TheCheetah this is what I thought.
Because even a smoking hot DARWIN like @CavaliereVerde and his KVL only has $87,000 AuM between 47 investors!
Less than $2,000 each investor.
How is a trader supposed to feel good about his compensation for winning the Darwinia mutliple times and trading well for his investors when now the significant boost from Darwinia is going to be lessened a bit?

[CavaliereVerde]

My plan is to upscale to 6000 .
6000 x30 = 180k

I will also upscale also my LSC despite it is ignored by everyone...

Clearly knowing the new rule one week in advance is something that I would kindly define suboptimal.

Correct upscaling requires TIME.

[TheCheetah]

Why upscale darwins with low D-score ?
Only Darwins and D-score > 70 should upscale to 10k$
Hahaha

[CavaliereVerde]

Only Darwins and D-score > 70 should upscale to 10k$
Hahaha

Right you can start to upscale UAF to 4800 and 1.00 lot
Dscore 60 is not so bad.

[yhlasx]

@CavaliereVerde I don't understand how upscaling requires time.. Increasing equity and increasing lot sizes simultaneously should not affect underlying stategy VaR to the best of my ability to understand this.. Could you explain please? Thx

[OutsideTheBoxHK]

@CavaliereVerde
Agree of course. This is wise. This is what intelligent traders and those who designed Dawinex's D Score know.
Also that some providers only have one DARWIN like myself.

I am interested how I look up which DARWIN's have earned the most (ranking based on Earnings is shown in each user profile) -- as is shown here for @PrimeZor who has 12 DARWIN's listed:

https://www.darwinex.com/username/PrimeZor

We can see a ranking based on how much a DARWIN provider has earned overall.
Can we see this stat displayed for a listing of all the rankings together?
Like who are the top 5 earners in Darwinex overall?
Thx

[CavaliereVerde]

If you trade intraday and close everything every day you can upscale at once but as you can see in my strategies I am at market 100% of time with overlapping trades.

BTW I have already upscaled my accounts at least 3 times with success and a stable VaR so I know how to do.