It is nice that you worry about our time management in our lives but some of us do have extra time due to waiting for set ups or already in a position waiting for it to play out. Just so you know...
Also, when something sounds like a very good deal, it is wise to do due diligence before buying that bridge. I know, I have invested with Madoff and Stanford...
Anyhow...
Thanks for bringing this up, because it addresses a point so far nobody looked at. Why don't we look at the whole deal from the backer's side? An uspide in split for the trader sure has to be a downside for the backer.
So let's say you get founded and start with the 60/40 split. Now if TST is not the backer they also have another split agreement with the backer, let's say 50/50. So both TST and the backer get 20-20% of the profits. Let's assume you doubled the money in a year (excellent performance), so the backer booked a 20% profit. Mind you, the backer only got 20% of a really good 100% return, which itself is kind of low, if I were the backer, but anyway...
So next year, based on your performance, you get the 80/20 split deal. Congrats! Now what does the backer get? Well, let's say he doubles his money at risk for one. And he also gets a worse deal for more risk. If you double the money again in the 2nd year, the backer gets exactly the same amount of profit (this time only 10% after the split) like in the previous year, although he risked twice as much money...
The bottom line is with your upside negotiable cause : It sucks for the backer. In real life, AFAIK, the more money a person manages, the less is his split, but he still makes more money because less % split on more money is still more profit...
Unless I am missing something, and I am happy to acknowledge if/when I am wrong...
Also, when something sounds like a very good deal, it is wise to do due diligence before buying that bridge. I know, I have invested with Madoff and Stanford...

Anyhow...
Quote from austinp:
What you're missing is the part about upside negotiable clause.
Thanks for bringing this up, because it addresses a point so far nobody looked at. Why don't we look at the whole deal from the backer's side? An uspide in split for the trader sure has to be a downside for the backer.
So let's say you get founded and start with the 60/40 split. Now if TST is not the backer they also have another split agreement with the backer, let's say 50/50. So both TST and the backer get 20-20% of the profits. Let's assume you doubled the money in a year (excellent performance), so the backer booked a 20% profit. Mind you, the backer only got 20% of a really good 100% return, which itself is kind of low, if I were the backer, but anyway...
So next year, based on your performance, you get the 80/20 split deal. Congrats! Now what does the backer get? Well, let's say he doubles his money at risk for one. And he also gets a worse deal for more risk. If you double the money again in the 2nd year, the backer gets exactly the same amount of profit (this time only 10% after the split) like in the previous year, although he risked twice as much money...
The bottom line is with your upside negotiable cause : It sucks for the backer. In real life, AFAIK, the more money a person manages, the less is his split, but he still makes more money because less % split on more money is still more profit...
Unless I am missing something, and I am happy to acknowledge if/when I am wrong...
but its never consistent. Only in the minds of micro forex traders and gamblers.