• Welcome to the Darwinex Forums, these forums are member-run and managed by CavaliereVerde. Member-run forum rules may differ from the site guidelines.

Why Darwinex is not growing?

Why Darwinex is not growing?

  • Total voters
    30
Gargamel said:
Portfolio Managers at Alpari literally didn't stand a chance because it was 'Max Risk' environment,no constraints for traders and abnormal Performance fees charged by traders.
Click to expand...
Yep. They tried to make it more conservative and the portfolios were a part of this. But no luck. They have returned to old max risk model a year ago.
 
IlIlIlIlI said:
A lot of Darwins including my ILR didn't show performance in the last two months. And 10% growth per quarter would be a dream for Darwinex. 🙂
Click to expand...
The growth of the population and volume is not so correlated to performance of the traders.

We can use Darwinia rankings to have a trackrecord of the population.

->https://www.darwinex.com/darwinia/01/2016 400 darwins
->https://www.darwinex.com/darwinia/01/2017 1000 darwins
->https://www.darwinex.com/darwinia/01/2018 2000 darwins
 
CavaliereVerde said:
We can use Darwinia rankings to have a trackrecord of the population.
Click to expand...
That only shows the Darwins which are eligible for Darwinia, including the inactive ones, but not all. Since they changed the rules for DarwinIA last year it does not show all Darwins, my Darwin is currently not found (Rs < 3)..
If you go to "All Darwins" in the menu you find "3187 DARWINs were found". I assume, here are only active Darwins listed, but I'm not sure about their rules.
On DarwinIA for May 2021 you find "Total prize-winning DARWINs: 120Total DARWINs: 4236".
Is there any way left to find out how many Darwins converted to Version 5 exist?
 
Ok but that is not the point.
The rules for Darwinis eligibility were the same for the 3 years that I mentioned.
I know that active darwins and eligible darwins are not total darwins but are proportional to total darwins.
In those 3 years the only exclusion was correalation so eligible darwins were very close to total.
The point is growth, and doubling darwins every year was growth and was happening, it happened at least for 3 years, pretty significant for a dream.
 
Performance fee has been 5.19%

veteransfees1.png
 
CavaliereVerde said:
I decided to change my vote to "high costs".
The gross return of my veterans portfolio for last 1y is 19% and I am paying 3.75% for management fees.
Click to expand...
It’s the question all businesses want the answer to – how likely are you to refer, if not, why?

The current deal on MF (and PF) needs to be way more attractive 👍
 
The answer to this question is easy to me...Darwinex is a dull, boring and not attractive place to put your money, period.
They killed the traders dream, then they killed the investors returns...so, that's all.
Trading is a risky business, it is high risk for both traders and investors. Both parts know that, trying to make Darwinex like a fund to collect a 5%-10% annual interest (if you are lucky...lol) is not a good bait.
People need to dream, look the grow of Binance, Coinbase, Voyager, Robinhood, eTrade, Gemini, etc...What is the highest risky asset nowadays? CRYPTO CURRENCIES....yes, people have invested zillions on crypto currencies in these last couple of years. Covid have given people the opportunity to save money, but nobody want to put the money on a dead body...
You can lose everything investing in cryptos (it is your responsability what money to risk, your spare money or your rent, but it is not the broker responsability), but cryptos can also change your entire life for good. Most people want that...the dream, even if it is risky.
VAR.....OUT (or at least not less than 20%) and Free Trading with at least 20% for the traders, and don't kill the investors with fees...at least that they make good money (if you make good money, you don't mind to pay fees).
Anyway, these are my crazy ideas as usual.
 
Last edited:
Forexintradiadarwin said:
The answer to this question is easy to me...Darwinex is a dull, boring and not attractive place to put your money, period.
They killed the traders dream, then they killed the investors returns...so, that's all.
Trading is a risky business, it is high risk for both traders and investors. Both parts know that, trying to make Darwinex like a fund to collect a 5%-10% annual interest (if you are lucky...lol) is not a good bait.
People need to dream, look the grow of Binance, Coinbase, Voyager, Robinhood, eTrade, Gemini, etc...What is the highest risky asset nowadays? CRYPTO CURRENCIES....yes, people have invested zillions on crypto currencies in these last couple of years. Covid have given people the opportunity to save money, but nobody want to put the money on a dead body...
You can lose everything investing in cryptos (it is your responsability what money to risk, your spare money or your rent, but it is not the broker responsability), but cryptos can also change your entire life for good. Most people want that...the dream, even if it is risky.
VAR.....OUT (or 20% minimum) and Free Trading with at least 20% for the traders, and don't kill the investors with fees...at least that they make good money (if you make good money, you don't mind to pay fees).
Anyway, these are my crazy ideas as usual
Click to expand...

all those investors lost money hand over fist. in order to keep that business model they would have to become just another broker /copying platform with big marketing budget and high churn.


it is clear Juan does not want to do that.

The current boring model is better, and building better traders which will pay dividends in the future.
 
Muiris said:
it is clear Juan does not want to do that.

The current boring model is better, and building better traders which will pay dividends in the future.
Click to expand...
It is not just about risk.
Where is the innovation? Where is enthusiasm?
They killed everything with 2 shots.
First one killed Darwinia in October 2018.
Second one killed Darwin asset in June 2020.
Are investors earning more today? I don't think so but they are paying more.
Same technology as 3 years ago and a lot of commercial and marketing changes.
 
Let's look to the numbers.
One year after "Pivot" Darwin conditions.

pivot1y+.png


pivot1y-.png


Pretty evident that investors are leaving.

About traders I don't understand how lower performance fees could improve the traders base.
In general with time better traders are stacking on the top but with worse conditions they are slowing the process.
The best traders are more likely to be attracted with 20% performance fee than with 15%.
 
Last edited:
CavaliereVerde said:
The best traders are more likely to be attracted with 20% performance fee than with 15%.
Click to expand...
IMO you can't live from these only big looking amounts besides in a cheap east European or Asian country.
All other traders earned less than 100k at Darwinex since inception.
1623445396265.png

SYO: since 2016 (5 years)
HFD: since 2017 (4 years)
THA: since 2015 (6 years)
LVS: since 2014 (7 years)
ERQ: since 2014 (7 years)

A significant majority of these payments were earned before "Pivot".

IMO full time traders can't live a good life from that, professional traders (with a registered trading licence) are not allowed to trade there as long as they are working for a hedge fund or bank.
15% or 20% would not be a subject for discussions if the investment amounts were higher as suggested with the "Pivot" trouble.
 
SYO is trading at Darwinex since 2018 but he is running a company so even his earnings are peanuts.
As far as I know darwinex made the difference only for ERQ and FSK .
BTW this is not a discussion about living from Darwinex but about their growth.
The max growth happened with VaR 10% and performance fees 20% so that was the sweet spot.
The actual parameters are wrong for growth, maybe are good for survival or to please their shareholders with better revenues.
This is a survival setup not a growth setup.
 
CavaliereVerde said:
BTW this is not a discussion about living from Darwinex but about their growth.
Click to expand...
They cannot attract successful full time traders with these conditions.
Juans idea for "Pivot": better traders -> more investors -> more money for traders
The reality: No high profit Darwins-> no really interested investors -> no growth
CavaliereVerde said:
The actual parameters are wrong for growth, maybe are good for survival or to please their shareholders with better revenues.
Click to expand...
Fully agree.

The trading account of HFD would have very interesting periods (like 09/20 to beginning of 05/21 with nearly 400% in 6 months) for experienced social trading investors, but the Darwin had not (not even 20% with "Pivot").
 
Last edited:
- Profit is growth! -

And these are the top ten high profit Darwins of the last 12 months:
1623449761177.png


Only 761k is invested here - no growth from inside.

It's a little bit better for the 2 years time frame because of SRI (816k invested in that Darwin, poor performance in 2021).

And this is the 1 year return of the first 11 (because of GFA) top invested Darwins:
1623449458958.png

Exciting? 😉
3 (including GFA) were negative, only 2 had a 2 digit return (without fees!).

The 2 years time frame looks much better, but that return was more generated before "Pivot".
 
Last edited:
The point is not the visibility of recent lucky darwins.
The point is that the darwin asset class is not convenient anymore.
Every year has its heroes but the global investors balance is negative
 
IlIlIlIlI said:
IMO you can't live from these only big looking amounts besides in a cheap east European or Asian country.
All other traders earned less than 100k at Darwinex since inception.
View attachment 301487
SYO: since 2016 (5 years)
HFD: since 2017 (4 years)
THA: since 2015 (6 years)
LVS: since 2014 (7 years)
ERQ: since 2014 (7 years)

A significant majority of these payments were earned before "Pivot".

IMO full time traders can't live a good life from that, professional traders (with a registered trading licence) are not allowed to trade there as long as they are working for a hedge fund or bank.
15% or 20% would not be a subject for discussions if the investment amounts were higher as suggested with the "Pivot" trouble.
Click to expand...
they leveraged their small peanut accounts to get 200k. now they can trade with 200k personal accounts. this is the point of darwinex.
 
That was true even before Pivot.
The point of Pivot was expanding investors base and they acheived exactly the opposite.
Paying 1,2% for a profit of 5% is not attractive neither for retail investors neither for institutionals.
You dont' make volume increasing the prices.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

IlIlIlIlI
Darwinex Zero demo portfolio
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
IlIlIlIlI
IlIlIlIlI
DeLorenzoFund
[HOWTOINVEST] Your approach as a Darwinex Investor
Replies
17
Views
1K
DeLorenzoFund
DeLorenzoFund
Sharky
Welcome Darwinex Veterans
Replies
2
Views
3K
NVP
NVP
FXforfun
FTMO vs Darwinex
6 7 8
Replies
151
Views
30K
IlIlIlIlI
IlIlIlIlI
IlIlIlIlI
Trade Darwins with MT4
Replies
3
Views
1K
IlIlIlIlI
IlIlIlIlI
Back
Top