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.

"Transfer" losses from one darwin to another

I was reading on this forum from a lot of investors whose had quite losses investing in some darwins and many times they asked what to do now.
I think that if Darwinex want to be not only a broker and if us as a community of traders want to “help” investors to being better investors (and a better investors means better results for both) we must consider way to increase their possibility after a bad start.
So, put aside all the words this is my modest proposal:

if an investors suffered a loss in a darwin (darwin 1) he can “trasfer” this loss to a second darwin (darwin 2) IF the trader behind accept, with a 50% discount to the performance fee paid to darwin 2 until all the losses are not recovered. So 10% performance fee.

Darwinex can also if possible add an other “plus” for the trader or for the investors (or both… a discount in commission?)
This will be a “one time” opportunity (for each darwin).

What do you think? What darwinex think?


A very interesiting idea, very fair but difficult to implement in my opinon.
There is a lot of communication here beteween traders and investors but theoretically no communication is required to invest darwins.
There could be legal issues because providers do not manage investors, there are no deals between traders and investors.

1 Like

I don’t think that makes sense.

Also the assumption that “darwin 2” makes profit cannot be proved. Otherwise …? Your idea, your turn. :slight_smile:

And it can’t be fair that “darwin 1” gets the full performance fee (from other investors or the same) if it makes a recovery while “darwin 2” gets only half.

I also doubt that it is the right signal rewarding a losing trader and investor in this way.

In my opinion it would be easier to implement transfering losses between darwins of the same provider.

The HWM should be investors vs providers (even darwinia) , not as it is with each darwin.

It would avoid closing darwins when it is easier to close the darwin and open another when the losses are big, and the provider has to work free for investors or darwinia during a long period