In financial trading, there are two kinds of experiences: those that validate a model, and those that force you to rethink everything from scratch. Ours belongs to the second category.
For over a year, we collaborated with a broker on the management of a PAM (Percent Allocation Management) account. The system worked: volumes were generated, trades were executed correctly, and the broker consistently earned commissions. However, despite all of this, we were never paid—not even once.
One year of work. Zero compensation.
This experience, as negative as it was, forced us to ask a fundamental question:
Why keep building models that depend on the goodwill of intermediaries, when the real value lies in the volumes and commissions generated?
That is where a complete shift in perspective began.
The Problem with Traditional Trading Models
Most trading systems—whether PAMs or copy trading—are built on a fragile assumption:
- profits depend on account growth
- losses are entirely borne by the user
- managers earn only if the account goes up
This creates two structural problems:
1 Asymmetric risk for the investor
2 Distorted incentives, often leading to excessive risk-taking or overly aggressive strategies
We decided to completely overturn this logic.
Our Copy Trading System: Not Profit from the Account, but from Activity
The copy trading model we developed is not designed to “push the account up at any cost.”
Instead, it operates on a far more concrete and verifiable principle:
- the system works on generated trading lots
- those lots generate broker commissions
- a portion of these commissions is returned to users
In other words, value is not extracted from the user’s capital, but from the trading activity itself.
Loss Cashback: A Simple Concept, Yet Rarely Implemented
The most innovative aspect of our model is this:
👉 losses are not ignored—they are repaid
When the system goes through a drawdown phase:
- commissions continue to accumulate
- those commissions are used as cashback on losses
- no profits are distributed until the loss has been fully recovered
Only once true breakeven is reached does the model move to the next phase.
This removes one of the most frustrating situations for investors: seeing profits distributed while their account is still underwater.
Monthly Profit Sharing, Only After Full Recovery
Once losses have been completely repaid:
- monthly profits are shared
- the historical average gross profit available for distribution is around 10% per month
- profit sharing is based only on real profits, not theoretical ones
It is important to be clear:
this is not a promise, but an operational average, naturally subject to market conditions.
Why This Model Is More Sustainable
In summary, our copy trading system is different because it:
- does not rely on forced account growth
- does not place all the risk on the user
- monetizes something that exists even in sideways markets: commissions
- aligns incentives between the system and the investor
- introduces a real protection mechanism, not just a declared one
This model was born not from theory, but from a concrete and costly failure.
And that is precisely why it works better.
Conclusion
If a flawed partnership had not left us unpaid for an entire year, we likely would never have questioned the entire system. Instead, we did—and from that process emerged a copy trading model that is more rational, fair, and structurally robust.
Not the most aggressive.
Not the flashiest.
But, in all likelihood, the most honest and sustainable on the market.
0 comments