The opinions expressed in these forums do not represent those of C2, and any discussion of profit/loss is not indicative of future performance or success. There is a substantial risk of loss in trading. You should therefore carefully consider whether such trading is suitable for you in light of your financial condition. You should read, understand, and consider the Risk Disclosure Statement that is provided by your broker before you consider trading. Most people who trade lose money.
It is very important that investors earn money in C2 and that serious developers remain on this platform. A price could be set for developers for the first 12 months. If the developers achieve a good performance, then the cost of participating in C2 could decrease.
In that way, the “amateur system developers” would finance the “serious developers”. And the most successful developers could include new strategies, many of them with lower levels of risk.
I totally agree GonzaloLoayza2, but what model can C2 adopt to do that and will they adopt that model?
I have personally seen too many high subscription strategies come and go within 1-2 months! This makes the longer term strategies unable to compete.
I originally had proposed an ‘earn your subscription price’ for developers which will depend on variables such as annual return, drawdown, length of service, number of subscribers, satisfactory level, etc. But I think that would be too complicated…lol
It is very easy to compete with high subscription strategies which come and go in 1-2 months - make your price lower and show same results for 3-4 months 
Unfortunately thats not the case, eh? lol
Actually 1-2 months high flyers are no competition for long term systems. They target investors with a completely different mindset. Or shall we say, they target gamblers whereas long term strategies target investors…
It´s rare enough that a gambler becomes an investor so it´s not even too much of an issue for long term system developers if many people (the gamblers) lose their money due to high flying systems.
IMO the real question for “serious” developers is, are there enough investors on this platform or is C2 a gambling hall? I´m pretty sure Matthew knows the answer when he looks at C2 statistics. 
Too bad he won´t share.
If you look at how C2 charges strategy developers. It is very clear, most high return strategies dies within two years.
Clearly 1 and 2 are correct. Number 3 is true for some but not necessarily for those strategies that deliberately build in some type of risk mitigation feature. From this new C2 developer, I don’t see much risk protections built into many high return strategies (stop orders are NOT sufficient). For the small investor, it is possible to achieve high return without taking extreme risk (not possible to the same degree for large institutional investors). So…legitimate high return C2 strategies should survive. C2 would benefit by providing some type of “stress test” metric for all strategies to give investors greater protection for those strategies that will fail due to high built in leverage.
C2 and we developers want investors to earn money. Their success is also our long-term success. If we work together, we could find some way that investors can benefit by “buying” portfolios that include four or five different strategies with different levels of risk.
Everyone who comes to C2 should have the freedom to create or subscribe to any type of strategy they choose, the risks are clearly spelled out. Trading is a personal thing, some want to slowly and safely save for retirement or whatever, while others may hope to get rich quickly and retire early or whatever. Neither is right or wrong, they are simply free choices and no one should concern themselves with someone else’s choices. Conclusion, C2’s business model is fine as long as they think it is, and they are having success with it.
Three Is wrong, all high return systems do not fail, there are some systems that are just that good out there in the trading world. Most, yes but not all.
Five is wrong also, as some subscribers chose lower risk systems with their free choice.
I thought that 5x was the max permitted scaling. In my opinion, developers should be allowed to limit scaling as the capacity of each strategy is different and he is the best person to decide about it. I believe C2 claims that the regulator does not allow fees (to developers) tied to scaling. Amazingly, the regulator does allow display of disproportional monthly short-term track-record of 100%+ which can mislead rookie investors!
