He he… Everybody fights for subscribers money and I feel myself a little bit outdated 
However, if you don’t mind there are two suggestions (I’m sorry) Personally, I know, that some of signals of my system cannot be traded in real life. Reasons are different and somehow RF reflects it. What I don’t like that somebody will pay for it.
My suggestion is to correlate “Pay for performance/Profitable trade” business models with RF per trade. E.g. trades with RF less than 90-100 (it can be any reasonable threshold) aren’t included to calculation of profit for a subscriber bill. Even if RF is raw and should be tweaked I prefer to not ask for money than be paid for BS signals.
And if my first suggestion were implemented I have second one.
Simple subscription should be removed from C2. A subscriber supposes to pay only for result of a system. It would not harm any good system, but it’ll cut any “harvesting of fools” business model. I understand that C2 might loose some money on second suggestion, but reputation is cost more IMHO.
I’d like to underline that it’s only my opinion and the opinion isn’t based on any commercial reasons.
Eu
Hi Eu
Many vendors are probably not going to like your first suggestion, but I like it. That definitely would cut down on some of the fantasy systems. However, this should be important then that RF should be accurate. Right now it seems that systems with any limit orders get penalized. Even the ones which have easily obtainable fills.
I am not sure I understand your second suggestion? What do you mean by “simple subscription should be removed from C2”?
Regards
- Fanus
Fanus,
Nobody will like the suggestion except subscribers lol
The suggestion isn’t only for filtering fantasy systems, but also for making bills more accurate. Limit orders suppose to be penalized, because there is a possibilities of not being filled.
>What do you mean by “simple subscription should be removed from C2”?
Right now main subscription model on the site is “Subscriptions cost $XXX per month.” In general terms s system vendor is paid anyway with disregarding of his/her system performance. It’s better to remove the subscription model at all for avoiding any build of harvesting systems e.g. when a system vendor is interested in creation of subscribers flow As I said if we convert “Subscription per period” to “Subscription per performance” it won’t make any harm to good profitable systems.
Eu
" it won’t make any harm to good profitable systems. "
That’s wrong!
90% of the subscribers enter fake credit card numbers or unsubscribe just before being billed and then re-subscibe for free!!!
For me, all business models can be cancelled EXCEPT the simple subscription per periode.
I wouldn’t appreciate at all if Matthew changes anything, because I paid a 6 month fee for displaying my systems. C2 can’t simply change the rules.
Last but not least, there is NO subscibers to unprofitable systems.
Statement 1:
"90% of the subscribers enter fake credit card numbers or unsubscribe just before being billed and then re-subscibe for free!!!"
Statement 2:
"Last but not least, there is NO subscibers to unprofitable systems. "
Two very strong statements. I assume you can prove that? The only way for you to know this information is if you have full access to the information with regard to all subscribers to all systems. Do you have that information? If not, what are you basing your statements on?
Chris
Chris,
Of course I don’t have all the informations but :
Statement 1 : C2 was unable to bill 25 clients the first month on one of my systems, I guess I’m not the only one.
Statement 2 : Subscribers are not fools (you are right, I can’t prove it).
Best regards,
JEP
Eu, I’m not sure why you are concerned that someone would subscribe to an unprofitable system and that somehow certain vendors could build “harvesting systems”. How many subscribers would stay with a system that is not profitable? You seem to have a solution in search of a problem.
Personally I prefer the flat rate subscription model ($x per y unit time) and do not like the pay per profitable trade method since it exposes me to an unknown cost for trades that I may or may not even take. Further it could encourage system vendors to initiate many small winning trades (each generating their own fee) rather than allow a single winning position to simply continue for some extended period of time. Also there are some systems (swing) that would not work well with a pay per trade model since they trade rather infrequently.
I my opinion the flat fee per profitable period is the most fair to both subscribers and vendors.
Subscribers know how much they will pay per period, but only if the system makes money which is, after all, what the vendors should be getting paid for.
Paul King
PMKing Trading LLC
www.pmkingtrading.com
I agree with the statement pay per profitable period is probably the best. Pay per trade is too small a basis; a period of a month or at least a week seems fair, whatever period that would allow at least a few or more trades. I think Jerome’s concern is legitimate, but subscribers unsubscribe from free trials for many reasons, most of the time not for false credit cards and intent to use multiple email addresses. If it is not a free trial, they still have to pay if they unsubscribe from a system that was profitable during time they subscribed. Software to check for valid credit cards is common; I don’t know how easily MK could put a check to see that a specific credit card is used only once for a free trial to a system.
Paul,
But the vendor is never getting paid, because it’s very easy for subscribers to unsubscribe one day before the bill and resubscribe one day after…
At present time, every vendor can chose its business model and that’s perfect. If you don’t like a business model, you don’t have to subscribe.
Daniel,
I don’t think that you get charged if you unsubscibe before the end of the period.
Jerome,
I agree that is is not good (for everyone) if the controls in place do not prevent free-riders who simply subscribe to free trials and then re-subscribe using a new account. Also I think that the credit cards should be validated when you sign up for a free trial, not at the point that something is actually charged (at the end of a free trial).
That being said, this is an issue between system providers and Matthew. If you do not find the controls sufficient then really your only choices are to lobby for change, stop offering a free trial period at all or quit C2.
Documenting how easy it is to circumvent the existing security mechanisms in a public forum like this doesn’t seem like it benefits you or the site because it may actually encourage more of the behavior you seek to stop.
Any subscriber who cancels before the payment is due and then expects to re-subscribe afterwards is not the kind of subscriber any vendor wants to support or have as a customer. I would like the functionality as a vendor to ‘ban’ users from subscribing to my system(s) if they have recently cancelled.
If this is a common practice (and only Matthew can answer this question) then something should be put in place that says if you do cancel before any subscription fees have been collected then you are billed a pro-rate proportion of the periodic fee for the time you were subscribed (if the system was profitable during this period). This is common practice for cancellation of periodic subscription-based services.
Paul
Pete,
Sorry for the confusion. There are two related points. The first one.
C2 has “Pay per performance” subscription type. Actually it’s the same as “Pay per period” with only one exception subscribers pay if a system is profitable for a given period of time. My concern is calculation of profitability of a system. E.g. we have 10 trades per a period. 6 are realistic and profitable, 2 - loosers and 2 unrealistic or so call hypothetical and profitable. My suggestion is calculate profitability of a system only by realistic (based on RF index for the trade) trades. Otherwise, hypothetical fills suppose to be paid in hypothetical money. Fair enough?
Second suggestion is following from first one.
If first one will be implemented why do we need “Pay per period”? Any particular reason for that ;)? C2 positions itself as unique service. Removing of “Pay per period” will make it more unique than any in the type of industry. Also it’s good marketing you can imagine how it might be used. Something as “Verified and profitable” lol
Also I don’t see how any good, realistic and profitable system might be even touched by converting “Pay per period” to “Pay per performance”.
Eu
Jerome,
If we really have the serious issue with billing for system vendor signals the problem isn’t related with business models. Actually it’s insufficient service and it’s really an issue that suppose to be raised, because system vendors pay for proper billing.
However, if the billing issue will be resolved or number of free-riders will be decreased somehow would you agree that “Pay per performance” model is more fair?
Eu
Paul,
>I would like the functionality as a vendor to ‘ban’ users from subscribing to my system(s) if they have recently cancelled.
You can unsubscribe any subscriber whom you don’t like. The functionality already in place. However I never tried it
>if you do cancel before any subscription fees have been collected then you are billed a pro-rate proportion of the periodic fee for the time you were subscribed
Why do you need it? If somebody subscribes to your system and don’t like it why do you want to charge the person?
Eu
EU,
Of course, a reliable “pro-rate proportion of the periodic fee” billing would be fair for both subscribers and vendors. But at present it’s only a dream.
Would a good system have any unprofitable period? (month) lol
Can system subscribers computer addresses be used to identify them when they return to subscribe again?
Eu,
thank you for clarifying that you are speaking about the “pay for profitable performance period” subscription method and not the “pay per profitable trade” option which I do not care for.
As far as eliminating the straight “pay for period” (regardless of performance) subscription method, I’m not sure why you are pushing so hard when you as a vendor have the option to pick either.
I think that you will open up a large can of worms once you try to start tying actual money into the determination of how realstic a trade is. Already there is some disagreement about the RF index and its currently only for bragging rights, once real money is involved I think it will be a much bigger problem.
As others have pointed out, there are real problems with systems that only require payment after the services are rendered (which is my understanding of how the pay for profitable period system currently works) because its easy to sign up with a bogus credit card. Until those problems are resolved I can understand vendors who do not want to provide their services upfront without knowing if they will actually get paid after they are rendered.
Possibly but its far from an exact science - lots of institutions/companies use NAT where many users (30,000 in one situation I am familiar with) are hidden behind a single IP address thus it possible that C2 would see multiple subscribers coming from a single IP (the public NAT address) and it would not be fraudalent.
Jerome,
>"pro-rate proportion of the periodic fee"
You put it better than all my babbling.
>But at present it’s only a dream.
You haven’t seen C2 at 2002. It was nightmare
>Would a good system have any unprofitable period? (month)
Of course and funniest part is when system vendors and their subscribers are in the same boat. lol Seriously, I don’t know about other, but it’s easier for me to not be paid for BS signals, even if I know that it’s coincidence.
Eu
