Not potentially - it was profitable trade round trip to be exact.
Matt, BTW this one is not first incident and your respond is the same.
He was using that as a general statement, you missed out on a trade. It’s better than taking a loss right?
Every system will have glitches, as Matt said, it’s a learning experience to hopefully prevent it in the future, or at least take actions to make sure that if it does happen again, it can be easily fixed.
I don’t care anymore.
Apparently there are several of us who are in the software business so let me make a few technical and a few non-technical comments.
I agree with paul_serd that there seems to be a lot of stability/scalability/reliability issues with C2. Matt personally is always quick to respond, he provides background and repeatedly reassures us that this or that will improve over time.
All this is said, at $1,200/year, this is a rather expensive service. For this price tag one can reasonably hope for somehow more robust software.
I have extensive hands-on experience with the IB API. [I understand that C2 has bigger scale and I also understand that they support other systems too.]
Based on this experience I can say that their order placement API is very robust and reliable. Their query and feedback (callback) API is less so. I suspect (real strongly suspect) that most of the problems we experience with C2 comes from the autosync, as opposed to the autotrade feature. I understand that they roll these together but maybe they shouldn’t.
I hereby propose the separation of the two features (and C2 will hate me for this).
Why can’t we have an “autotrade” feature for free – like “we transmit the trades to the brokers, we don’t attempt to keep track of your trade executions, performance reports, autosync, option exersize, whatnut.”
And an autosync feature for the current $1,200 price tag, with the current feature-set.
1 Like
