Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
I certainly had the same conclusion. Stating the obvious but worth saying that at least far as I understand it, the reasons lawyers drop a client like appears to be the case here, especially right before trial, are not good. Usually, not saying it's so in this case, draw your own conclusions, it is due to some material disagreement over pay, ethics, being blindsided due to dishonesty, or some other breach of contract that makes it impossible for the attorney to continue in good faith.
That old saying "don't summon a demon you can't banish" comes to mind. When you attack someone, anyone, be it physically or legally, you open and expose yourself to counterattack so you'd better be loaded for bear and not have any obvious weakness.
Again, not saying this is the case. We won't or can't know until the transcript of trial comes out, if it goes ahead. But *if* it's established that this guy has a multi-year losing record when his entire fiefdom is predicated on claims of being a stone-cold killer who is so consistent he's developed software that can emulate his success, then again, (Captain Obvious at ur service) this will undermine all of his business interests, his reputation, and squarely cement him as exhibit "A" when in reference to that old saying about glass houses and stones. Just saying.
I wondered about this right off the hop - i.e. if it's possible that this account is not a personal one, but rather something for R&D for the product. This is certainly what's being suggested in this supposed declaration, and might possibly have to be said under oath as well if this is the strategy taken to mitigate damage related to the trading record. A risky game if it's not true, so you have to wonder if it is or not.
It's not a good look either way. If these trades are not from a personal account and were made using the best (presumably, why would you risk real money otherwise? It's easy to test in sim) version of a product through the years then the product may not have fared very well unless it was tested over many accounts and this one just happens to be a huge loser. But this stretches credulity as a million bucks is a hefty sum to blow on R&D when there are so many other ways to test trading software. Devastating for future sales when your business model is based around a winning record and edge so large it purportedly translates to algorithms comprising a system that can consistently beat the market.
If the entire trading record is made available, I'm sure that experienced traders and the sleuths on this forum will "Encyclopedia Brown" the hell out of this bitch and there will be at least some anecdotal clues as to what the basis of these trades really were.
A systems based machine wouldn't likely revenge trade, dollar cost average, chase the market or do so many of the things that we hoooomans are famous for, giving the way our prehistoric wiring is pressed into service in these days before the singularity.
If there really is a long term record and it's open for examination by the trading world, I think there will be a consensus at some point about whether the trades were based on an algorithm or a human nervous system.
I'm right there with you. The entire thing looks very, very bad at this point.
However, it's an easy fix for Mr. E-Mini if it's simply not true. For example, if this account is one of many and it was only used for R&D, then it's a relatively easy matter to make yet another video and point to a web-page where you post your "real" trading record showing the success you've harped on for years. So there's no reason to him to fear if he's the real deal. He'll have the goods to back it up and it's his choice to make them public at any time now that this account has come to light and people all ready have the trading records which appear to have been attest to via affidavit. I mean, why not, right? When you enter the public record and consciousness and thrive on documenting so much of your life and exploits, what problem is there with presenting more information that exonerates you and your business, showing your trading prowess?
But with the legal matters, we're well beyond the realm of puffery and the stakes are so much higher. This isn't going to be an easy fix if it turns out that, as you say, there is consciousness of guilt and the plan is to try simply rewrite history. This may well not be the last lawsuit.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that someone who's made so many enemies and a habit of keeping a record of their adversary's foibles and unattributed edits to their history, has given reason for his enemies to do the same for him and keep track of the copious amounts of information he's willingly contributed to the public domain.
Of course it's his own account. No sane person would R&D test on those amounts for 10 years.
You'd have to be an inbred fucking idiot to do that.... oh wait.
