DislikedIn this case, I think it's fair enough to discuss with him their new conditions to pursue the partnership with him, instead of playing dirty tricks refuse to pay him and/or boot him out like other prop firms might do.Ignored
We understand how the model works, so we understand why they do this, but it's really not the right approach, in my opinion, since it encourages shady and dishonest practices and does not foster a positive, transparent and honest working relationship.
As mentioned, if props would simply employ a max-profit, per-person/account, per-month rule, and change the model to be subscription-based (like these futures firms), then they could likely sustain the model without having to use shady practices to ban people and/or deny payouts etc..
And maybe a max-profit rule is not the answer... maybe having trailing draw-down is; I don't know. It obviously works, though. If given the choice, I would want max profit instead of trailing DD, personally.
Either way, such a change could mitigate risk for the firm by reigning in the gamblers and supplying a constant in-flow of cash while still providing a great opportunity for traders. A firm would simply need to run the numbers for a while to see what works. Many traders may not like it, but it beats payout denials, bans and shuttering of firms altogether. It's no fun having to guess what the profit threshold is for a particular firm at any given moment.
Something needs to change; I simply do not see most of these remote prop firms surviving for very much longer, otherwise, especially if MFF fails to make a full comeback.
8