Automated EA Promising 1,000% Weekly Gains Sold for 100 Euros

EA that gained 1,000% in a week ended up auctioned for 100 euros

On its first day of live trading, the system generated over 25%. It operated with 1,000 dollars, 100x leverage, and mini lots—a detail the author cited as proof of merit: less capital means higher risk and greater achievement. This figure ceased to be an anomaly when public tracking showed the program accumulated over 1,000% weekly profit with a maximum drawdown of 3.78%, a calculation highlighted by forum users. The issue was never performance. It was the sale.

What is an EA and what this system promised

An EA — expert advisor — is a program that operates autonomously within MetaTrader. This one was presented as multi-market: currencies, stocks, indices, ETFs, and CFDs, with the euro-dollar as its initial testing ground. The author insisted it used no technical analysis patterns, correlations, or indicators. Quantum trading, he called it: numbers and mathematics. Hence, he claimed, it could apply to any market.

The advertised configuration sought 10 points of profit per trade, executing over 100 daily trades per currency pair, provided volatility allowed. The tracking link showed 14 trades, with open positions visible only privately via remote control of the author’s computer, arguing that publishing them would give away the system.

The numbers that didn’t add up

Performance was the least of the concerns. The striking combination was over 1,000% in a week with a declared drawdown under 4%. For anyone experienced with automated systems, this ratio is the first red flag, and it was flagged: results of this caliber usually come from grid position strategies, not stable statistical advantages.

According to a forum user’s code review, no order had a stop loss. When a position hung and leverage was exhausted, manual closure was required to open new trades and cover previous ones. And, according to that same analysis, there was a threshold: upon reaching a 40% drawdown on initial capital, all losing positions would be closed. The logic, in that user’s words, was simple: if you gain 3,000% in a few days, closing 40% at once is free.

The author admitted this without embarrassment: “I don’t mind accumulating a 10% loss on a trade, if by that point I’ve already gained 100%.” No one has audited those open positions, nor the numerical breakdown supporting them. That full calculation remains outside any public report.

The PAMM funds pitch

Around the case grew a broader discussion: PAMM accounts, structures where a manager operates multiple participants’ capital from a common account, charging commissions only on profit. Defenders emphasized that the manager cannot withdraw deposited funds and that their incentive aligns with the investor’s. Critics replied that this does not eliminate the risk of a strategy like the one described.

In that context, comparisons with banking — criticized for risking others’ money and being bailed out upon failure — and large funds emerged. Another system’s name also appeared, converting 10,000 into 400,000 since 2010, cited as proof that grid-type strategies work. None of these pieces answers the uncomfortable question: what happens when the grid runs out of margin to keep opening.

From one million euros to an eBay auction

The system went up for sale. Rexter claimed one million euros were asked for it, and the thread discussed managing investment funds with the system, plus offering it to whoever paid. The commercial argument had an uncomfortable point the author admitted halfway: if it works like this, why sell it?

The answer never convinced. Fraud accusations repeated, and the rebuttal pointed to envy, professional critics, and a supposed smear campaign. Derivatives included third-party managed accounts and a charity auction: system usage was bid on eBay, with a 30% profit donation to charity and the condition of operating from the author’s servers in Madrid. Bids reached 100 euros, with some users noting it was still rising.

Parallel to this, a secretary figure managing appointments via email appeared, along with promises to contribute food donations worth five figures. A year after launch, no audited, public history existed to verify anything.

The outcome: the death announcement

The final section breaks the tone. A message announces the imminent death of the system’s supposed creator, the handover of its keys, and a gift for loyalty, claiming the system was never truly for sale: it had been gifted long ago. Another announces the death and leaves the account to the family, along with a figure — +14,888% in March with a subsequent system, audited on MQL5 — and a farewell positioning it as a reference for quantitative trading in Spanish.

Not everyone remembered it that way. Some farewells, in the same vein, labeled his trajectory as fraud. The story splits into two: a community formed around a supposed calculation genius, and those accusing that same trajectory of fraud.

With these threads, the useful question is not whether the system won. It is what part of that 3.78% drawdown was risk control and what part was makeup for a grid of open positions. It remains unanswered.