Sure, but that's consistent with their target market, I think?
Their service is targeted at people with trading skills but without capital to trade their own accounts.
Making "hundreds" must be a pretty good deal, to those people? They can't do it on their own, after all, because they can't trade at all without backing? This is surely TST's market?
There's a reason they publish their blog in Russian as well as English, too? Their lists of successfully funded traders certainly seems to include plenty of people from Ukraine, etc.?
I trade CL a bit, but it's only my "distant second choice" of instrument. (I suspect NQ is far more suitable for TST trading than CL?) Or that their answer to your observation above, which I don't doubt at all of course, would maybe be "trade 1 contract, not 3"?
I think it's maybe a little odd to be comparing TST with OneUp in some ways: TST have been established for many years, funded many hundreds of traders and paid out very reliably, after all. OneUp, I think I'm right in saying, is a brand new business that hasn't yet paid out a single funded trader, and doesn't even fund people themselves, anyway?
Their service is not targeted at the people with trading skills but without the capital contribution to trade their own accounts. Their service is targeted at the demographic of people who 'think' they possess adequate trading skills [based on feelings like arrogance and narcissism, no proven track record or statistical market advantage, at all] but don't have the sufficient capital contribution to trade their own accounts.
These people are, on average, the reckless risk-loving people who will keep chasing a dream by dumping monthly recurring subscription payments into TsT's hamster wheel infrastructure without actually learning absolutely anything because TsT's parameters do not encourage nor support learning how to trade 'for real'. More likely than not, this demographic is probably less educated [not possessing bachelors/masters/PHDs], has more debt/insolvency [credit card payments to TsT], and less income. This is analogous to gambling and not true portfolio risk management. That's a big distinction because their service doesn't truly scout for good traders, rather they're chiefly concerned with maximizing combine fee revenue while reducing funded trader risk as much as possible.
If this weren't the case, TsT would post statistics on combine/FTP applicant success rate, trader longevity and retention, median trader earnings, etc., and would also have more favorable risk parameters. There would be less marketing and advertising of mediocrity and their environment would contain a vibrant community of traders posting their successes more frequently/mentoring others.
Nor am I saying that, by the way, that OneUp is the answer; rather, they're only slightly better and have implemented only a few more favorable rules over TsT. What are some of these rules that I'm talking about? Well, to start, refunding the evaluation fee if you passed should be an industry standard if your objective truly is to scout for the best traders [neither TsT nor OneUp does this]. Next, a trader should not be paying the monthly data fees [OneUp doesn't charge the trader monthly data fees but TsT does]. Next, there should not be daily loss limits, weekly loss limits, drawdowns, etc. -- you should be given, according to a selected account size, an amount of buying power, a profit objective, a time objective, and a drawdown that is NOT trailing. The trader should either pass or fail within these parameters [neither OneUp or TsT does this purely, but OneUp does it better]. As you continue to show promise, your funded account increases in size and as you do poorly your funded account is reduced in size. In addition, you should be able to trade all reports if desired and hold overnight to allow for swing trading; specifically, you should be able to hold positions until the 5pm eastern close instead of the current ~4:15pm limit [neither OneUp nor TsT does this, though OneUp does allow for report trading during the evaluation]. That's just some of the rule changes that would turn this business model from "farm evaluation fees" to "discover real trading talent".
Moving onto your other comments, sure, in impoverished and limited areas around the world in which the cost of living is significantly lower, then earning a few hundred in the united states denomination is acceptable. Sure, some people even in top producing nations [GDP] like USA, find it acceptable to earn a few hundred a week. However, for 'real' trading, this is an embarrassment; 'real' trading should be earning 20 ticks/day on average minimum with a position size in CL of at least 5. If you have any real talent at all you should be trading at least 10-20 CL. This should be $1k/day or about $250k/year minimum and if you have any real talent you should be earning far more than this. If you're not, it suggests you've hit a personal ceiling, and you need to continue improving. Also, yes, the person can trade 1 instead of 3 but it gets back to my first point -- making a few hundred a week with 1 contract as a CL trader is very limiting, mediocre, and is quite frankly pathetic to anyone who is a 'real' trader.
P.S. I am a funded trader with MES Capital [OneUp's funding partner] and I have been paid. Yes, OneUp is new. No, MES Capital is not new. Yes, they could still be illegitimate. As of now, however, my experiences have shown otherwise. In my opinion, in the 'funding traders' market/industry in which only OneUp and TsT exists, I find OneUp better for the consumer.
