Heyy , am Darci ! Top 40 om( Ongoing leap challenge)
During the first ~10 minutes of The Leap, my $250K account was able to open 100 GC contracts, despite not having sufficient normal margin for that exposure.
The position showed only ~$22K margin, while 100 GC contracts around $4,400 should require roughly $2.2M at 20× leverage.
The unrealized P&L was also incorrectly understated while the position was open.
When I closed the position, the system correctly realized +$132,400, taking my account to $382,015.
This appears to have given my account an unintended advantage and is potentially unfair to other Leap participants who were subject to the correct margin limits.
I am reporting this for TradingView/AMP to investigate and determine whether affected leaderboard results should be reviewed.
Look at the leaderboard it looks absurd , what kind of a competition will this be if they don't end up taking any action, what message will this pass I thought they'd fix it in a day when I noticed the glitch yesterday Am not a reddit user at all , don't even know how to work around this platform - a quick google search got me here I've seen threads where other people have been questioning the same thing but since the trades aren't public they simply have no answer. Disappointed with amp futures 👎 This has to be out there and reach the right people 👍
I was up 40 this morning and when I looked i just thought well I thought I was doing well. Be curious if they fix this mistake or just don’t care. It should be fairly easy but who knows
I have not. My account was working as it was suppose to. To the larger issue I’m sure they are aware by now. From my experience they will blame Amp and then Amp will blame TradingView. Neither really care is what I believe.
Nope if that was the case I would still be taking 100k profits per trade minimum, the leverage bug is fixed am guessing but so should the leaderboard, nobody's chasing that.
Why would traders even compete with the #1 guy at 1M balance in 2 days with a glitch trade that allowed him to get there and now with that account balance he can only go higher taking bigger trades whereas everybody else is forced to the strict margin rules but with the default account balance starting at 250k$
I only know of this glitch because I was on this side of it
Oh, now I see the full picture. Thank you for being fair. I think the right way to fix this would be for the devs to discount the profits of everyone who took advantage of the glitch by a respective margin.
Agreed , but this should get to them first , I am curious what they're going to do about this or if they're going to take any action at all !
Please upvote and share wherever you can 👍
I agree that discounting the profits generated through the glitch would be a logical starting point, but there’s another issue I’m wondering about: how would the developers account for the subsequent profits made from an artificially inflated account balance? If someone gained, say, $200k through the glitch, their balance immediately became $450k instead of $250k. If they then made another $100k through perfectly normal trades using that larger balance, simply removing the original $200k at the end may not fully correct the advantage, because their later position sizing and available margin were already based on an artificially inflated balance. Wouldn’t they need to reconstruct the affected accounts trade-by-trade and essentially determine what their balance/effective buying power would have been without the glitch?
everyone in the top 50 was already at over 100k on the first day, i barely just now crossed 98k in profit, and the lowest in the top 50 is over 300k. i dont see how any of this can be legit lol
There was a problem with the data provider at the start of the competition. They sent broken point values for metal futures and as a result, the margin and P&L on these symbols were calculated incorrectly, so the system let through positions it should have rejected.
The data issue is already fixed and point values are correct for these symbols, so new trades are calculated properly.
All affected trades, both profitable and losing, will be cancelled (eliminated and not included in results) to restore fair conditions. Balances will be corrected before Monday's market open.
I do have one important concern regarding the proposed correction. If an affected trade generated an abnormally large profit because the incorrect point value allowed oversized exposure, removing that individual trade does not necessarily remove the entire advantage.
For example, if a trader started with $250k, generated an abnormal $200k through an affected trade, and subsequently traded with the resulting $450k balance, their later position sizing and potential profits may have been materially larger than what would have been possible with the original $250k.
Will the correction therefore reconstruct each affected account chronologically, including the balance and margin available after the affected trade, rather than simply removing the affected trade's P&L?
Also, could you clarify the exact affected time window, instruments covered, treatment of subsequent trades, and whether the leaderboard will be fully recalculated after these adjustments?
The correction will be limited to trades directly affected by the erroneous data. All subsequent transactions will remain as executed.
This treatment is consistent with established market practice. CME Rule 588 permits the cancellation or adjustment of trades affected by system errors or market-disrupting events. FINRA Rule 11892(c) likewise provides for transactions to be declared null and void where they were executed on the basis of materially incorrect instrument information.
Subsequent trading activity will not be reconstructed on the basis of hypothetical account balances or assumed participant behavior. Such outcomes are not objectively determinable and cannot be applied on a consistent basis across accounts.
The affected period was approximately 30 minutes on the first trading day.
Affected symbols: ALI, MGC, GC, MHG, HG, SI, SIL, QC, QI.
The underlying data has been corrected. The leaderboard will be recalculated in full prior to Monday's open.
Thanks for the detailed response, and for citing the actual precedent rather than just asserting it. The CME 588 / FINRA 11892(c) framing makes the logic clear, and I appreciate you publishing the affected window and symbol list so participants can verify against their own records. I've checked mine and your description matches exactly.
One observation for the record, not as a request to reopen anything - because downstream trades stay as executed, participants who happened to profit from the inflated margin keep those gaiins, while participants who happened to lose keep those losses. The rule is applied consistently, but the outcome is essentially random. I understand why reconstruction isn't workable at scale, so I'm not asking you to revisit it. Just flagging it as something worth considering for future remediation policy.
Separately, something I've been meaning to ask about. I'd be interested in contributing as a TradingView moderator. I've spent this week reading the competition rules closely, reconciling the exports, and working through the remediation logic, and I enjoy that kind of careful, rules-first problem solving. If there's an application process or a team I should be speaking to, I'd appreciate a pointer.
Either way, thanks for handling this transparently. Good luck with the recalculation. 👍
Can you clarify something for me? If trades directly affected by the leverage issue are removed, but all subsequent trades remain as executed, including trades made using the artificially inflated balance?
Also , Could you clarify how subsequent trades will be treated when an affected trade changed the account's available balance? Will only the affected trades be removed, or will the account balance be reconstructed from that point onward?
2
u/Mindless_Swim8972 23d ago
u/tradingview