What the Copy Traders section is, and why nobody there is unverified

The exchange publishes the numbers, so verification is not the question here. The question is what a good-looking curve leaves out — and 76 of our 1,186 traders have already answered it.

Why is there no "unverified" tab for copy traders?

Because there is nothing a copy trader could tell us that we would take on trust. Every trader in this section is read from the exchange's own data: their daily equity curve, their followers, their drawdown. We do not ask them for numbers, so there is no self-reported claim to be sceptical of.

That makes the section fundamentally different from Signal Providers, where a channel publishes what it likes and the whole job is checking whether it happened. Here the data arrives from Bybit, and the work is not verification. It is reading.

On 19 August 2026, the day this was written, the section held 1,186 traders, and all 1,186 were measured. The catalogue grows, so every count below is a reading taken on that date rather than a standing figure. A tab for the unverified ones would have been an empty room with a sign on the door, which is why it no longer exists.

What is actually measured?

The daily curve, and everything that follows from it.

The exchange reports each trader's return day by day. From that series we reconstruct what a follower would have lived through: the worst single day, the deepest peak-to-trough fall, the share of days that ended green, and whether the account was ever wiped out and restarted.

That last one matters more than it sounds. A trading account that resets its balance breaks the arithmetic of every all-time percentage: the ROI counter starts again at zero while the money that vanished stays vanished. We cut the history at every reset and treat each stretch as its own cycle, which is why our all-time figure is a sum of cycles rather than a compounded curve. A trader can post a triumphant number that is arithmetically true and materially meaningless, and this is the mechanism that separates the two.

What do the risk figures actually say?

Two numbers on the listing exist to be uncomfortable, and both are filters you can click.

Blew up — 76 traders of 1,186, counted on 19 August 2026. These accounts were wiped out at least once in the history we held on that date. Not "had a bad month": the balance went to effectively nothing and the counter started again. Six percent of the section as it stood that day, and none of them are hidden from the ranking for it. Both filters are live on the listing, so the current counts are always one click away — and they will not match these.

Drawdown ≥ 70% — 192 traders on the same date. At some point the account fell by more than seventy percent from its own peak. Recovering from that requires more than tripling what is left, so the number is a fair proxy for "would you have stayed in the trade".

Neither filter removes anyone from the catalogue, and neither is a verdict. They narrow the list to a subset so that you can look at it, because the alternative — a leaderboard sorted by headline return with the wipeouts quietly interleaved — is exactly how a fourteen-month-old account with one lucky quarter ends up looking like a professional.

What does Life Score add to that?

Life Score reads the whole daily curve rather than the endpoint, including the parts a headline return smooths over: how deep the falls went, how long they lasted, whether the account has ever been reset. It is the number in purple on every trader row, and there is a full guide to reading it.

Verified Score, in blue, is a separate thing: it grades how much of the trader's activity we can see through the exchange API at all. Two scores, two questions — how well did this account survive, and how much of it can we actually observe.

What does exchange data still not tell you?

Three things, and they are worth naming plainly.

It does not tell you the trader will do it again. Every figure here is a description of what has already happened. The distribution of outcomes across the catalogue is itself the argument: if past performance carried forward, the 76 blow-ups on the day of writing would have been a much shorter list.

It does not tell you what they are trading with. A pristine curve on a small account and the same curve on a large one look identical here, and they are not the same claim about skill.

It does not tell you what happens after you follow. Copy trading executes on your account, at your sizing, with your leverage settings. What you would have experienced is not the same series as what the leader experienced, and nothing on this page models that gap.

How is this section related to the rest of the catalogue?

It is one of four things we list, and the differences between them decide what a page can honestly claim:

• Copy traders — this section. Exchange data, measured, no verification question.
• Signal channels — publish entries in public, which we replay against real candles. That is what Signal Verified means.
• Analytics channels and VIP storefronts — publish no entries at all, so there is nothing to replay. Listed, honestly unverified, with reviews and reports.
• Promo funnels — publish neither entries nor analysis, and route readers into a third-party platform for commission.

A channel can move up from the third group by opening its paid feed, or by connecting a read-only exchange key. A copy trader has nowhere to climb: the exchange already publishes everything we would ask for.