So I built this little two-part plan in my head.<\/p>\n
Step 1<\/h2>\n
I’ve already covered finding traders to follow, so I won’t repeat that here. It’s the link in the first bullet.<\/p>\n
- \n
- Find traders who fit the profile<\/a><\/li>\n
- Put the minimum $50 into copying them<\/li>\n
- Set it on Smart Ratio (no other adjustments except to follow their margins)<\/li>\n
- Leave it for 4 weeks<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
I still think 4 weeks is enough to catch the bad traders, though I’m extra-twitchy after those big losses. That’s where the second part of the plan comes in.<\/p>\n
Step 2<\/h2>\n
I keep weekly stats for the new traders, of course, so I can see if they yoyo up and down or work steadily in one direction. Not that this really makes much difference – it’s the final result I’m interested in – but if they consistently lose, then suddenly get a big win that saves them? Well… I trust it less.<\/p>\n
At the end of the 4-week period:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Remove any who bankrupted (duh)<\/li>\n
- Remove any with negative PNL<\/li>\n
- Remove any with less than 5% profit<\/li>\n
- Withdraw profit from remaining traders (reset them to $50)<\/li>\n
- See if released funds can add new test traders<\/li>\n
- Continue 4 more weeks for those over 5% profit<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Two whole months of testing?<\/p>\n
Is that enough, too much, too little?<\/p>\n
It feels right. The really bad traders usually die an excruciating death in the first month, and the extra month makes sure it wasn’t just luck. There’s no guarantees in this circus, of course.<\/p>\n
This Month’s Results<\/h2>\n
The last 4-week test period ended on Sunday, so I went through and updated everything.<\/p>\n
1 bankrupted, 1 almost bankrupted (weird result, as I explained on Sunday), 3 didn’t make the cut, 3 stay in testing, 3 new traders added.<\/p>\n
Let’s start with the drops:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Romb<\/a> bankrupted, dropped<\/li>\n
- Scalp daily as routine<\/a>\u00a0almost<\/em> bankrupted (and finished 3.25% in positive), dropped<\/li>\n
- CryptoCat<\/a> finished 1.14% in positive. dropped<\/li>\n
- The money baker<\/a> finished 1.54% in positive, dropped<\/li>\n
- Burgas63<\/a> finished 3.14% in positive, dropped<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Scalp and the Baker were a shame, they looked good. I was tempted to “go with my gut” on those, but then remembered that my gut is stupid and talks crap. Especially when confronted with lead trade figures like these (those are the trader’s losses, not mine!):<\/p>\n
![\"Nasty](\"https:\/\/cdn.publish0x.com\/prod\/fs\/images\/6b0b2b7eb9fbcadff802555612270e85a7250bc240599331fa20396ccd71c645.png\")
<\/p>\nThen we have the survivors and new additions:<\/p>\n
- \n
- No Risks<\/a> (despite my avoidance of that kind of name) up 39.28%<\/li>\n
- rzhadko<\/a> up 14.20%<\/li>\n
- Ratnik<\/a> up 5.00%<\/li>\n
- 30*****6<\/a> added<\/li>\n
- ComfyFrog<\/a> added<\/li>\n
- TP Trading<\/a> added<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
You’ll notice that pretty much EVERY choice has “High Stress Tolerance” on their tag list, whether they’re conservative traders or not. Those are the ones who know how to survive a sudden movement in the wrong direction!<\/p>\n
You’ll also notice that there are 5 drops and only 3 adds. I’m going to move the other ~$100 into SOL staking (Banking) to build that up a bit, ready for the (hopeful) price hike this year.<\/p>\n
- rzhadko<\/a> up 14.20%<\/li>\n
- Scalp daily as routine<\/a>\u00a0almost<\/em> bankrupted (and finished 3.25% in positive), dropped<\/li>\n
- Romb<\/a> bankrupted, dropped<\/li>\n