Starter mode and Full mode

Why size decides the structure

Each sub-account needs enough margin to hold its leader's position at the mirrored ratio. Divide a small balance ten ways and each slice is left rounding positions down to minimum sizes — at which point you are no longer mirroring the strategy, you are approximating it badly.

Fees compound the problem. Ten sub-accounts mean ten sets of entries and exits for the same capital base, and on a small balance those costs consume a disproportionate share of any result.

• Position granularity: small slices round to minimum sizes and drift from the leader.
• Margin fragmentation: isolated margin cannot be shared between sub-accounts.
• Cost drag: more parallel strategies mean more round trips on the same capital.

What Starter mode actually gives you

Starter mode is not a degraded product. It runs the same scoring model, the same risk controls, the same non-custodial agent architecture and the same replacement logic — applied to the single highest-scoring qualified leader rather than to a basket.

The trade-off is honest: you get faithful mirroring of one strategy instead of a thin approximation of ten. Concentration risk is higher, which is exactly why the single leader chosen is the one with the strongest composite evidence.

Crossing the threshold

The gate is mirrored volume, not deposits, so it reflects activity your account has actually generated. On crossing $100k, additional sub-accounts are provisioned and capital is redistributed across the qualified basket by score at the next rebalance rather than all at once mid-position.

Risk in both modes

Neither mode promises a return. Starter mode concentrates outcome risk in one leader; Full mode reduces idiosyncratic risk but remains fully exposed to market risk and to correlated positioning across leaders.

Past performance is not indicative of future results. Perpetual futures are leveraged instruments and carry a substantial risk of loss, including the loss of your entire position.