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.

Bijagual is a amazing strategy


When it comes to designing a web site, every decision is a trade-off. There is no perfect answer. Each solution has pros and cons.

So, with that in mind, let me explain the decision C2 made with regards to allowing strategies to go “private,” and the reasons for it.

Basically, we want strategy developers to feel in control of how their strategy, and their intellectual property generally, is presented on C2.

If Trade Leaders don’t want to present a strategy publicly on C2, then we won’t force them to. Doing otherwise would discourage good strategy creators from joining us in the first place. Trade Leaders considering whether to come to C2 will think to themselves: “Sure my strategy is doing okay now. And I’d like to show it on C2. But once I join C2, I can never change my mind nor remove my track record from public scrutiny.” This fear will prevent good strategies from joining C2.

Let’s look at it from a subscriber’s point of view. You see a strategy has been made “private.” You can reasonably assume that is because the strategy is not performing as well as the Trade Leader would like. This fact is abundantly clear. What more, really, do you need to know? More important, once a strategy is private, you can no longer subscribe to it, in any case, so there is nothing further you can do. You can assume the reason why a strategy was made private was that its performance was not what the Trade Leader had hoped.

I think this is the right way to run the site. Trade Leaders do not have to commit irrevocably, by signing away their first-born child, to the requirement that their strategy remain perpetually visible to the public, no matter what. If they want the freedom to remove their work-in-progress from public view, we let them. That’s their right. No subscriber will be misled or fooled by this. They won’t be able to subscribe when a strategy is private anyway.

Now, if the Trade Leader improves things and wants to make his strategy public again, then fine. He can do so. Which means he can again solicit new subscribers. But remember: now that the strategy is public, the full track record will be visible. Even that bad period when the strategy was temporarily private will be visible. If the strategy went through a drawdown, that drawdown (and indeed all history) will once again be visible. Subscribers will be able to judge for themselves that period in the track record.

What it boils down to is this: If you want to ask for subscribers, you must make your entire track record visible. If you no longer want to ask for subscribers, you can remove your work from public view. This policy is designed to allow Trade Leaders feel comfortable about joining C2, since the decision is not one that must be made irrevocably.

This policy isn’t underhanded, or a way to enable devious behavior. There’s nothing devious about any of this. It’s simple and above-board: If you are a Trade Leader, you get to choose whether or not to show your work to the public. If you choose not to show your work, then fine — but you won’t be able to solicit customers on the platform.

This seems to me a fair, balanced policy. Of course reasonable people can disagree, and no policy is set in stone, never to change, but this is the current state of things, and the reasons behind the policy.


Matthew, thanks for chiming in here.

There is a huge difference between a strategy that underperformed and a strategy that went off the rails where the trader leader tried to martingale out of a bad trade by averaging down, basically blowing up. As a subscriber I would like to know which was the case before I ever subscribed to any future system from that trade leader.

Once a system is public that part of its history should stay public, if the trade leader wants to take it private then its fine to hide all new activity from that point forward but what happened before that point should remain public IMO.


Thank you for the clarification. For me it seems reasonable.

Does trade leader keep existing subs during “private” mode? Does auto-trade work at that time?


This is slightly misleading, I think what you meant to say is, “if you choose not to show your past work on one strategy then you won’t be able to solicit customers for that one strategy”. There is nothing stopping you from creating a new strategy and soliciting customers who will not be able to review your past work (made private).


Obtained double standards.

  1. Personally, I asked you to restore my strategy for currency futures I deleted where there was no trade, but I was told that it can not be done, you need to open a new strategy. What if the strategy is deleted, everything can not be restored.

  2. And in this case, the author deleted the strategy. And then restored it to him back. He means you can.

Where is the logic? Or I misunderstood the situation.


I second to that.

I agree that no policy is perfect and they do need tweaking. And the tweaking should / could be based on user feedback (or on new regulations – but we will not discuss FB here. Point is, it does happen.)

I wish to add that this “fear” would prevent scam artists to join as well. But ok, we want good strategies.

But to add to this “message” (if you follow Pete’s recommendation) that “I can test my strategy to my heart’s content before I go public, I can even go invisible again, but I understand that C2 will not change the past (history)” should be acceptable for good strategies to sign up (and may not be acceptable for scam artists, that is fine.)

[Incidentally a more aggressive and more transparent policy could be simply “once you are public, you are public” – this doesn’t contradict to your stated goal.]


I think this makes the most sense.


Mathew, Firstly, thank you for your well thought out reply. You do make a few valid points i did not not previously consider. I understand we do not want to scare away potentially gifted developers. But at the sake of transparency to the subscriber i would have to strongly disagree. As Pete stated there is alot of information to be gained by viewing a developers prior systems. Whether or not he Dr Martinflailed it into the crapper is just one example.

Regarding a prior flailed track record becoming visible again should the developer bring the private system back to non private: Why did Bijagual resurface again recently out of retirement (non private) without showing its prior god awful trackrecord? What am i missing here?



Pete and others have described the problems well and presented some solutions. Adding another-how about Test Mode for a Trade Leader? They could choose to have the strategy results displayed or not displayed during Test Mode, but they could not solicit subscriptions while in Test Mode. If a Test Mode system goes south, they can remove it from records whether on display or not-no harm, no foul. But once the Trade Leader chooses to go Public and solicit subscribers their record is going to remain readily available in the future right up until they go Private. But once Public, going Private needs to be a one-time only event for that system, including different names for the same system/data. This could satisfy all legitimate Trade Leader needs for privacy without taking advantage of Investors.


“Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results.”

I have a different approach. Every time strategy goes public->private, it should be gone for good from trader history. Technically will simplify many things and force a subscriber to learn and make a decision based on current strategy history (maybe longer than few weeks). NFA statement works in both directions. Past good performance is not guaranteed to be repeatable, same with past bad performance. Why do we want to create any “solutions” about trader past history, if this is necessarily indicative of future results and somehow will against NFA statement?



when a strategy goes private. do they lose all their existing subscribers ? what will happen to their open positions ?


Simple solution for everybody - don’t consider traders with private systems onboard. Easy, everybody happy, no changes for c2. :wink:


Technical aspect for Matthew if he wants to go this road. Maybe strategies will subscribers should never be allow to go private (reaching max subscriber limit can be resolved by keeping strategy public and do not allowing to subscribe). My point is that all private strategies without subscribers, that were at some point of life public, are “necessarily indicative of future results” and just taking space in the cloud, and it should be recycled.


No, when a strategy goes private the existing subscribers continue to receive signals and the positions remain open


Please see this strategy. On July 2017, the strategy manager closed all his subscribers due to many customers complaint he can not manage DD. The manager put his model in Private and accepted a few former subscribers. In 2018, past performance does not guarantee for future results. Just be careful when a manager make it private during high DD and reopen to public when the performance goes back in the track.


Whoa, that strategy looks like a good example of why shorting volatility is always a terrible idea.


Shorting volatility is not always a terrible idea. He didn’t short volatility, he held XIV inverse volatility for months on end, to the tune of 90% of his portfolio. In fact it seems that after he made that purchase in July 2017 he sat on it and didn’t do a thing further til it cratered. That’s not a system, but it is indeed a reasonably terrible idea to buy-and-hold inverse volatility for any substantial portion of a portfolio. Especially so when there are signals that can and do flag dangerous situations for inverse volatility. Not every vol strategy went bust in February, a few did very well.

Sorry if my response is a bit off topic, but so is pro/con private/public strategies compared to the initial posting here :slight_smile:


This is an example of a system whose records should always be clearly tied to the trade leader regardless of future system/user/name changes, right up to the time they entered and closed the last public trade. The important thing is that it’s there in the future . If they went private before the last trade close of 2/22 it should get shown since it was entered when it was public.

C2 max dd in top header has all too frequent error of showing 30% dd, when it’s obvious the last closed trade wiped out over 90% and the individual trade dd shows n/a instead of correct data.

Simply put, from the time a trade leader does the first subscriber trade until the time they may choose to do the last one, they shouldn’t get to hide and bury the results in the future when they offer a new system. The time period of being Private (or Public for that matter) without subscribers or in a Test Mode without subscribers doesn’t need to be saved and gives trade leaders all the opportunity to test ideas.


I’m not sure if people realize, that is no single customer invest money in strategy, there is ZERO pain here? It means that customers are responsible for 100% of the pain because they invest in strategies. Just don’t want to look in the mirror if something goes wrong. I know, it is difficult to agree with it, but it is true.

As past long-term customer and current developer, I have a simple solution to most of the customers (accounts in Interactive Brokers). Run ‘Risk Navigator’ or ‘Portfolio Performance Profile’ (Menu->File->New Windows->Portfolio Performance Profile) and check what 5 or 10% drop in S&P 500 will do for your portfolio. If you fill uncomfortable with the result, reduce strategy(ies) exposure. That alone will solve 90% of your failures.