6 Month Testing Period


Have you ever considered only allowing systems to go public after 6 months (or a minimum amount of time)? This would help filter out some ridiculous systems that over leverage just to attract subscribers.

You would also prevent, what I believe, to be baseless “reviews” after a system is 1 or 2 months old.

You would still charge developers from day one, but I think you would have more disciplined developers and, somewhat proven systems listed instead of many fly by night ones.

If a system does not cut minimum requirements then after 6 months it simply will not be allowed to have subscribers. It will always be linked to the developer (as they are now), but not allowed to be subscribed to.

Just a suggestion. Thank you.

Disagree , this wont improve anything and the website will die , an old system can still make risky trades , in this case Safe Capital is already running for 4 months what difference another 2 months will make ? Look at other systems running for years , they still make big risky bets and blowout or give up all gains eventually , the problem here is in the derivative trading business in itself , its risky and leveraged .

Followers hold some responsibility here , they did join because of greed and because they want the 50% monthly returns to continue without expecting big risks ! Otherwise why they didn’t join the less risky systems out there ?

Its safe to say that if a system is making XX% a month then it can lose -at least- as much in any given month and it will .

Not sure if that helps system developers - paying for six months of careful tracking of your system before you can earn any income hurts both the developer and C2 (who loses their cut of the subscription fees).

Trading systems are very much a “caveat emptor” proposition - as in any trade you pay and accept a certain level of risk in exchange for possible gain, but all you are truly sure of is that you have placed money at risk. This is just how trading works.

A possible alternative is to require a minimum set of validated backtest data to be made available by the system developer to demonstrate system performance under different market conditions - would you ever trade a system that did not provide evidence that it worked for more than a month or two? I certainly wouldn’t, and as a system developer I provide a minimum of 5 years of backtest data for every system I sell here at C2, which includes 2008-2009.

I would also not allow reviews of any system unless the system is at least 6 months old and the reviewer has been subscribed for at least 4 months. That should weed out both bad systems and some of the more emotionally-driven reviews.

Would suggest that you just filter out any system less than 6 months old.

I agree that trading is risky and no, the site won’t "die."

There are other “mirror” trading sites that require a testing period and that are very successful. They look at minimum requirements and if those are not met (even if the system is profitable) then your system will not be listed.

Obviously you can’t screen at a 100% certainty every system. You can have a developer trade well for 8 months and then go crazy and over leverage and blow up. But if I believe the chances of that happening would be slim.

If a system is risky from the beginning (whether its a drawdown minimum that was not met or leverage, or whatever stat you want to use) then it won’t be listed from the start. The chances of an old proven system to simply start taking risky trades probably won’t happen much. At least from a developers point of view, it would not make sense to do that.

@Kevin, my opinion of backtested data is simple. Not reliable. I can show you many great backtested strategies that simply do not come close to when traded in a real trading environment.

I do agree 100% on the reviews. I think its ridiculous that after a month or two people are giving 4-5 stars.

My question, what is the point of having a system listed that attracts a lot of subscribers and then blows up in 3-4 month period? From a business stand point you probably just lost a handful of future subscribers.

From a developer stand point its great. You risk $100, trade like a monkey and if you attract a bunch of subscribers you have a great Christmas.

Just a suggestion. Be nice to see what others think. I appreciate the responses. Thanks.

"You can have a developer trade well for 8 months and then go crazy and over leverage and blow up. But if I believe the chances of that happening would be slim."

Disagree , i don’t want to name names but i can show you many old systems that gave up all gains after years of trading . Not necessarily because the developer has changed his method or discipline although it happens , but market conditions changes can be brutal to many systems so 6 months is a short period to judge a really profitable method , in fact its safe to say that most systems will eventually go back to the starting line .

Many subscribers wont join a conservative consistent profitable system anyway , so the problem is still there , most subscribers want big gains , 2-3% monthly wont cut it , we have many old systems already so why subs don’t just join them instead of jumping on the new hot system bandwagon ?

Apparently it 19s in people 19s nature to chase extraordinary gains. Systems with 1Cnormal 1D decent returns do not always get the attention (and subscribers) they deserve.
But I 19m confident those systems with a nice and normal track record over a larger period of time will get rewarded after all.

That s why the grid is here for ; selecting viable systems based on REALISTIC risk/reward ratios

Although a 6 month ‘trial period’ could be useful for those that are new to C2 I agree that the Grid (if used correctly) can provide the sort of analysis you require by simply entering in your appropriate parameters . (i.e. > 180 days, > 3 Sharpe, > 30 Ann return etc)

In my view, the primary purpose of C2 is to act as an intermediary for system developers and new clients/subscribers with the purpose of - 1) allowing system developers to provide not just trade signals but a service, 2) make money and 3) protect subscriber capital by active management.

A degree of responsibility needs to be taken by subscribers to choose appropriate systems to match their risk profiles. If a system has made 50% in month 1, 50% in month 2 and 50% in month 3 personally, this would make me more cautious of the system. The same responsibility should be assumed by system developers to remain within their stated risk profiles and this would be a red flag for subscribers if a system developer started to take risks beyond what has been disclosed.

However, I agree and like the idea that subscriber reviews should not be published until a subscriber has been continuously subscribing to a system for a particular period such as 3 months.