Matt - Have you ever considered an alternate fee structure such that system developers could either (1) pay a flat fee every 6 months as they do now; or (2) instead of the flat fee, allow C2 to keep all subscription fees until the subscriber fees collected exceeds, say, 250% of the regular flat fee. I, for one, would happily work under the second arrangement. Having no subscribers at present (despite having 5 fairly decent systems “up & running”), I am disinclined to fork over $75 per system in the hope that I will someday realize subscription fees sufficient to offset my costs. Furthermore, since without paying the flat fee, I am unable to actively manage any of my systems, as your 5-trade limit prior to paying the fee precludes my so doing. Thus, for example, I have been kept from implementing my stops on GLD (stop was 167; now 163 & went as low as 158 recently) and GCC (stop was 31.05; now 30.81 and recently as low as 30) in my Semi-Permanent Portfolio, obviously adversely affecting the system’s performance and therefore its attractiveness to potential subscribers. Likewise, in my Brownian Motion system, I have been unable to exit my very profitable position in GMCR (entered at 47.09 and recently as high as 69) without paying the semi-annual fee first. Surely one reason there are so many “bad” C2 systems must have to do with their having been abandoned–many with open long or short positions–by developers unwilling to pay developer fees in the absence of subscription income. [LINKSYSTEM_69583680]
I’ll second this idea. I’ve already abandoned a few systems due to not having subscribers and had to focus my efforts on one single system which still has no subscribers. It’s very hard to start a new system and be successful here at C2 when you get discouraged for the first year.
