i can't speak on Bright, other than what i've read here as having an exceptional reputation, but assent, no chance. every flamer and troll on here is obviously with them, not sure why they'd defend the model. they must be happy or making a killing and are trying to protect their basket. across the board, churn and burn shops, a franchise model based on commission trading, your own capital, little or no support, no mentoring or training of any kind, no ability to modify or use alternative trading softwares, etc..
if it comes down to semantics, fine, but in the end, someone has to be making a profit somehow. nobody trades for free. in my own situation, i'm a hybrid, but it remains to be seen and tested if the model actually works, and what kinds of traders are best suited for it. there seem to be many idiots on here hell bent on just pissing on every conversation for the sake of pissing, so we know where those guys will be seated when the flight leaves. but at least i'm willing and taking the risk to try. no one else seems to be. so far, i've seen more positive and constructive than destructive and negative, which in and of itself is a great sign.
i believe, as in all evolutionary processes, a hybrid model between the two will develop, and the larger firms will eventually copy it or acquire the smaller shops having perfected the model in a considerably shorter period of time and cost than if they were to build new divisions or change their existing models entirely, simply because it takes a long time for a big ship to turn around. when that day comes, we'll see who was right and who was wrong in this whole "props suck" discussion.
but my guess is as soon as the economy even remotely shows signs of recovery, churn and burn shops will disappear entirely from competition at the retail level, or for having had their dark pools lit up for scrutiny to the new derivatives SEC unit, their leverage ratios cut to match the daytrader retail restriction.