germantrader - I think you may have provided a solution to the problem ! I had a look , and it really makes sense to implement something like this for the next competition - for those people who want to do maximum size, they can still carry on doing it; for those wanting to trade more conservatively, then they can do so - but everyone knows that at the end of the day, it is the risk-adjusted rate of return (RARR) that would be used to rank the eventual winners.
There could be two columns - absolute equity return and risk-adjusted return - and both can be used to rank top performers to the worst performers in a table, as it is now. However it would be made clear that the final decision on the competition winners would depend upon the rankings in the RARR; here is Varengold's version of the table which seems so much more informative and actually reflective of the skills of the traders within realistic bounds:https://www.trading-challenge.com/pdf/Ranking.pdf?1322667081
If they are using this RARR way of assessing competitors and fund the winners with 150,000 USD, it backs up the concerns and frustrations I have. In fact, all the banks, traders, algos, etc. are judged this way. Below, they kindly provide the pretty straightforward metric to implementing the RARR.https://www.trading-challenge.com/pdf/FAQ_en.pdf
Please, let's make the next competition more interesting by doing it this way - and it will encourage new interest and actually bring to the fore consistently good traders instead of lucky gamblers !