What is the point of offering a strategy that requires $260K? It can have the best returns in the world, but they’re meaningless.Naturally the system provider does not trade his own system.Why would they? If they had the free and available capital they’re requiring, they’d hardly be looking for new C2 subscribers.
This is a problem not limited to one provider.Many require too much capital, and in virtually every case the developer
declines to trade his own system.Why?
What system? Can’t you just scale down to fit your balance and risk tolerance?
Depends on the system. Futures require more capital to trade with appropriate risk level.
Yes you possibly can, but much more transparent to start off with a sensible amount - my main point was skin in the game.If you’re money’s not on the table, you can take
any risk with the system you like.It’s irrelevant to the provider if it wins or loses.Obviously much better to win for the fees, but no loss if it fails, and if it does, another can be added, or the original can be retweeked, renamed and given a new identity, leaving the original subscribers with their losses.
1 Like
Obviously some systems require more capital, depends what you’re trading.Does any system really need a $100K plus to start? I don’t think so.Show me a system that the provider puts down own $100K down on the table at the commencement.
copper pea capital the minimum amount requirement is 260K
If you are looking at minimum requirement by c2. That is way wrong. C2 should just remove that stat completely. All it means was he’s trade size was never smaller than 250k.
Trade own system has not much incentive. Most developer might start with 5k or maybe 25k. Very different confident level vs seeing 250k for a potential subscriber. Also when you have a TOS system you manage risk and the money differently. There are so many non TOS system risk everything on first few trades to get on leading strategy board or get a higher c2 score. That’s where the money will be made. If the strategy goes bust after first few trades, no problem. Just scrap it and start over until one sticks. There is a few deleveloper has started over 30+ strategy this way a few had started as much as 150+ new strategy. Some of them has gone as far as starting a new account so people won’t catch on.
My point is there is no incentive to be a TOS system and all the downside to be a TOS system. Also from c2 perspective. they are a for profit company, when 95% of the strategies are non TOS, and 5% are TOS. You can’t expect them to promote the 5% of their clientele and penalize their 95% of the clientele.
In the end just do your own homework and scale correctly. C2 platform works, scaling works.
3 Likes
100k minimum - easily. Portfolio of futures with 2-3 open at the same time positions will require 100k. GC Gold Glitters, for example, recommends 1 contract per 50k.
As a developer I recommend a certain amount to manage risk, for example if you have a target on what your daily loss is in a given day, you can advise subscribers that trade a certain position size/per capital they are using so they can survive through any drawdowns. However, on the flip side, some developers do put artificially low, not high, capital that results in overinflation of their results, which can last until their is a bad period and drawdown is huge. For example, my model recommends maximum 2 nasdaq contracts if you are trading less than 50k. If however, I were to say 5k, any up period would result in huge hypothetical gains, yet pose huge risk to subscribers during inevitable down periods. That’s not good risk management.
Amarish
