Personally, I more or less comprehend most of every of the 4 moves.
I have nothing to say against 1). Traders need to get some meat in the game for credibility towards potential investors. I find the amounts requested very reasonable to comply with, especially for those with some success other than random.
About 2), it rather suits my style directly (high activity facing a reduction of commissions) so I will be one of the last to complain unfortunately. Overall, like I explained on their forum, the tactic comes with arguments and I‘m willing to give this orientation some time to mature. It’s not void of logic. I’m not condemning it right away. If it were to become a failure, I believe they would apply flexbility enough to revert backward or head towards a fresh direction again. We’re all on the same boat and Darwinex has as much interest than us to shine, giving satisfaction to all the parties involved. Since always, some parties have been more or less favoured by the conditions and rules. There always have been some compromises about the adventure, either on the investor or trader side for example. Surely, the transition comes with its share of losers and winners, so I understand and hear arguments. But it’s nothing more than yet again a rebalance, not a deal breaker (imho)
3) Again, I was never a fan to complicate the trading with Quant metrics which are vaguely arbitrary. Although I’m ready to admit some Investible Attributes can be useful with a little anticipation power. Aft the end of the day, measures don’t fill your pockets with money and I do not mind at all to have rankings and a tournament whose rules are stripped down / simplified.
4) I think we will do good and well on trading forums that come with broader horizons and are free. I regret that it didn’t happen before. In other words, I won’t miss the in-house Community which was too inbred to my taste and out of sight of the mainstream public to federate, aka too much of a niche. I’m welcoming independence day !
As for censorship, I was never a victim of it myself but it‘s something I’d disapprove by principle. To mitigate, I also realise that Darwinex is more than a broker, has bet on a concept which by all accounts looks like “mission impossible” to begin with, surfing at times around grey borders with merit, so I’m also expressing support and gratitude for the challenge accepted... Overall, I find attenuating circumstances, especially compared to nastier situations that happen online, on sites with open commercial interests and zero ethic at all. I still believe that Darwinex remains above the crowd.
