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.