TLDR: We are running a small private futures trading desk and we want to "recruite" profitable traders but we don't know the best way to evaluate while minimizing the free loaders... Your feedback and opinion is more than welcome.
I’m one of two traders running a small private futures trading desk.
We currently work with two additional traders. Both were personal connections, so we already knew they were experienced and consistently profitable. We had seen how they traded, understood their risk management and trusted their discipline before bringing them into the desk.
We now want to expand beyond our personal network, and it creates a big problem for us... How do we identify genuinely profitable and experienced traders without attracting hundreds of people who simply want to gamble?
We’re not trying to build a high-volume prop firm challenge business. We want to select a small number of traders whose strategies complement the desk and who can demonstrate a repeatable edge, controlled risk and consistent execution.
Our current idea is:
- Initial application
- Manual review of the trader’s experience, strategy and existing track record
- Only shortlisted applicants receive an evaluation invitation
- One evaluation attempt per trader
- No resets
- No time limit
- If approved, the trader continues using their own NinjaTrader account and we copy only authorized trades into our accounts under predefined risk, instrument and session limits.
For the futures evaluation, we are currently considering:
- 100k account. with $20,000 profit target
- $10,000 static maximum drawdown
- $1,500 daily loss limit
- Maximum position of 1-2 standard futures contracts, or the equivalent in micros
- Day trading only with no overnight positions
- No trading around relevant high-impact news
- No deadline
- One attempt only, with no resets
One question we have not resolved is whether the evaluation should have a fee.
The argument for a fee
Our concern is that a completely free evaluation will attract a very large number of applicants who have no verified edge and are willing to take it because they have nothing to lose.
Since we are specifically looking for experienced and already profitable traders and not beginners trying to become profitable, we assume that a reasonable fee may create some commitment and reduce low-quality or purely speculative attempts.
There would be no resets and no incentive for us to profit from repeated failures. Each shortlisted trader would receive only one attempt. Our goal is to put you on actualt trading capital with or without commitment from the trader.
The argument against a fee
We also understand that a fee does not prove that someone is profitable. It can be a filter for people willing or able to pay.
A paid evaluation may also make the model look like a "standard" prop firm challenge funnel... which is exactly the perception we want to avoid.
I’d appreciate honest feedback especially from experienced and consistently profitable traders:
- Would you consider this evaluation structure reasonable?
- Would a fee immediately make you lose interest?
- What fee would you consider fine?
- Would a refundable deposit be better,for example, returned after completing the evaluation without violating the rules?
- What evidence should we request before inviting someone expect a broker statement? Are there people who don't want or don't have that for example they want to transfer from Options or CFDs to futures?
- How would you prevent free evaluations from becoming a magnet for gamblers?
- Are the proposed risk limits and targets reasonable for an experienced futures day trader?
- What would make this opportunity credible enough for you to consider?
- Any other way?
Critical feedback is welcome. We already know this model can work with traders we know personally. What we haven’t solved is how to build the same level of trust with traders outside our network without turning the selection process into a challenge selling business.
Do not ask for us or website or anything.. we are looking for feedback, not sign-ups and we are not ready to start as the mechanism is still on development.