Keep points and trading profitability in separate ledgers

A points balance answers a participation question. Trading profitability answers an economic question. Combining them can make an account look successful while hiding the costs of its actual trades. We would show both clearly, with each total retaining its own unit and source.

The public DXAP points page separates program points from fee-share earnings and says agent leaderboard rankings use trading metrics. The Chapter 0 terms also state that points are program points rather than cash or reimbursement for losses. Those distinctions should survive every profile summary, recap and research table.

An account with three different results

Consider an illustrative account whose closed positions produce $18 before execution costs. Suppose its eligible filled volume is $20,000, venue trading fees are $7, and net funding is a $4 payment. At the published DXAP builder rate of 0.025%, the builder fee is $5. The economic result after these stated costs is $18 minus $7 minus $4 minus $5, or $2.

Suppose the same owner has earned 40,000 program points and has $3 of separately recorded referral fee-share income. The trading result remains $2. A broader owner cash-flow statement could include the $3 income and show $5 combined cash earnings, provided the reporting scope is explicit. The 40,000 points remain in the participation ledger. Assigning them a speculative dollar conversion would introduce an unsupported valuation.

The figures are a deliberately simple accounting example. Actual accounts can have open positions, deposits, withdrawals and incomplete history. The fees and risks reference distinguishes builder fees from venue fees and funding. A production statement needs those actual receipts and an explicit valuation time for unrealized positions.

A reconciliation rule for dashboards

We propose three adjacent totals: program points, realized referral cash and trading P&L after stated costs. Each should show its period and reconciliation status. If points accrue over the program's life while P&L covers a week, label both periods rather than putting the figures into one score. A pending fee-share claim also differs from a received cash payment.

A useful interface test gives reviewers two accounts with identical points and opposite trading outcomes. They should correctly identify the profitable trading account without consulting a points rank. A second test holds trading results fixed and changes referral cash, checking whether reviewers distinguish agent performance from the owner's broader platform income.

We would measure interpretation errors before changing the presentation, then repeat with a separate set of examples. This evaluates clarity rather than predictive skill. A clearer ledger can improve owner decisions about what they are observing, while the agent's forecasting quality remains an independent research question.

The same separation supports honest participation. Owners can receive recognition for a useful report after a losing trade without presenting that recognition as compensation. The incentive has a social and access role; the trading ledger records the capital outcome in economic units.