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.
We’ve raised the guaranteed payout to strategies that achieve C2Star certification.
It is now $1,000 per month (instead of previous $500 per month).
In addition, we now accept forex strategies into the program.
If you’re a a strategy manager here on C2, you should at least consider C2Star certification. No, it’s not appropriate for every strategy. Indeed, there are lots of objectively “good” strategies that will not meet the strict drawdown and risk constraints we require.
But if you trade in a controlled way, with muted drawdown, you should consider applying for certification. You will earn at least $1,000 per month upon certification (that’s the guaranteed minimum; certified strategies have a good probability of earning more).
If the index in 60 days will grow by 40%? Excellent condition - the system is eliminated if it does not work in 60 days + 41% arrived.
In C2Star program, I will not take part until there are such conditions on profitability - ahead of the index by 1% in 60 days and earn at least 1% per month. In the long run, no one will show such figures. Systems will close every 3-4-5 months. I’m not sure that a good system will even live there for 1 year.
I’m struggling to understand the business case for this program. Not a single current C2 strategy has been able to maintain these requirements for a year. And once a strategy slips on any of these requirements, it become decertified and any auto-trade subscribers dropped.
So, that tells me that you’re not really trying to pull in long-term subscribers, because there will be no long-term strategies. What this then becomes is a $199 bet that the strategy can survive 60 days to collect that $1000 reward. If one thinks there’s more than a 20% chance he or she can do this, then it’s a good bet; if not, then it’s a bad bet.
So again I wonder, what’s the business case? Does C2 hope to make money on the $199 initiation fees, assuming less than 20% of strategies will survive? Or does C2 really think strategies will be able to maintain these requirements for the long run, and therefore be enticing to subscribers? There will clearly be more strategies that die each month than that will survive each month, so how is that a good thing for subscribers?
I love the idea of having some kind of “quality certification” – but I’m afraid in my humble opinion, that isn’t what this program is. Many will be willing to take some $199 swings at hitting that 60 day payout, but that’s gambling, not investing…and if there are subscribers, they will likely suffer.
To me it seems simple – a quality system should beat the S&P over the long run (not every single 60 day rolling period) with less risk taken (not draw-down realized). Or some multiple of that (more than double the return with less than double the risk taken, etc.) “Risk taken” is much harder to calculate than “draw-down realized”, but much more meaningful – especially over timeframes of less than years.
I really do hope that these requirements can be adjusted to make them achievable in the long-run for good developers and more meaningful for subscribers.
There are just too many rules in C2Star which are designed (intentionally?) to throw out and churn/burn systems with regularity. I think the formula works well only for, and favors C2 revenue. I have seen exceptionally good systems on C2 and Quantopian, eToro etc., which would impress institutional investors, but be thrown out by the draconian rules built into C2Star within weeks (ker-ching!). This needs a radical re-think along the lines of what is “best for investors” and long term revenue, than the lucrative churn/burn fees for C2 that the whole project seems to have been designed around.
I do not claim C2Star criteria are the only ones that matter, nor that C2Star is the mark of whether a strategy is good or bad.
In fact, I have said that C2Star criteria are appropriate only for a certain type of strategy: generally short-term trading, with controlled risk and drawdown.
These are the strategies I am currently trying to bring into the program, because these are the strategies I want to see more of on C2.
I have made a decision to focus on these strategies first. In the future I hope to expand the C2Star program and introduce new criteria for other types of strategies.
Until then, I encourage you to focus on your current strategy, and its performance. It doesn’t have to meet C2Star criteria to be a wonderful strategy. Perhaps you can reserve judgment until I add new versions of the program more applicable to your style of trading.
c2 trying to search for unicorn manager. 5% max drawdown with a rolling 2 month of beating S&P by 1%. I mean is totally doable, but i don’t know how long it can be sustained. I would love to see someone can sustained this at least a year and go thru 1-2 pullback. mostly scenario is he out perform the S&P for 10 months, then a pullback would drop the strategy out of c2star unless he timed perfectly at the top and exit all the positions early of a pullback.
Here is where I disagree about risk control. The drawdown criteria definitely forces trade leader to act appropriately to manage risk, but at the same time minimum performance criteria throws this out of the window as trade leader is forced to act on a daily basis to ‘create’ trade to stay in the program (his 1000$ is at stake) or do nothing (even if his system has a trade) if he already satisfied the criteria for the day. I pointed this before but noone commented on this.
I think subscribers are out of the picture in this game. Its trade leaders vs c2 for their own pay-offs
Nothing wrong with a program that promotes short-term trading with controlled risk and draw-down. I think the point that many of us are trying to make is: no strategy is going to be able to maintain these criteria for the long run. Of the thousands of mutual funds, ETFs, hedge funds, etc. out there, how many would have passed all these criteria for the last year? My guess is zero.
I thought you were interested in feedback, therefore part of the reason for your forum posts - but if you’d prefer for us to “reserve judgment”, then I won’t post any more on the topic.
I recently finished reading one of your books, and really enjoyed it!
If you violate risk controls, you are kicked out and have to re-apply with a new entry fee
If you simply do not qualify by meeting the performance minimum, or the capital allocation minimum, within 60 days, you will be given a chance to re-up and continue in the program with the same strategy for half the typical entry fee
I thought you would welcome feedback. Aren’t forums designed to allow freedom of discourse. Would welcome any C2Star programs which encourage positive alpha without prematurely throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Good luck.
As for me I think the strategy will work because I try to trade under strict parameters, only one trade a day maximum, and short term. My doubt is that I only trade Crude Oil Futures, and for the C2 Star Certification it says one of the requirements is that account Must deploy minimum amount of capital by 1%, meaning at the end of the 60 days I have to be over 1% in that requirement? , if I trade crude oil, how many contracts do I have to trade to achieve that requirement, or how does it works bc Im a bit confused. Thanks!