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.
MK, while you’re ‘at it.’ Please consider the following:
Similar to the ‘old’ “last trade stat,” The system chart/graph and widgets can reveal the same crucial information for vendors that trade one/two instruments. I can explain if needed. Perhaps they need to be delay as the developer delays the display of their trades.?
I’ve searched the forum and did not find this being addressed: Does C2 actively enforce a ‘no reselling signals’ clause? I assume such a clause is in effect, correct? By ‘enforce,’ I mean ‘scanning’ trading activity to see whether one system is trading similar to another. By ‘similar,’ I mean one system need not trade exactly as another, but could instead trade highly correlated instruments. For example, instead of trading NUGT, a copy cat system could trade JNUG instead.
I’ve noticed C2 Explorer code associated with revealing the correlations between systems; however, this code can only be utilized when the suspect systems are already known. My question relates to the discovery of such systems, without prior knowledge that they even exist.
I plan to develop C2 Explorer code that will seek out systems trading the same or similar instruments in unison. Which leads to my next query.
If C2 is given information that such a ‘copy cat’ system exists, how does C2 handle that situation?
I understand that most would never consider doing such a thing; but I don’t leave my front door unlocked because most people aren’t thieves.
While a developer can ‘unsubscribe’ anyone; they would not be able to simply or easily determine the bad actor without assistance from C2…assuming the actor hasn’t covered all of their tracks. This would seem to make dealing with the copy cat system, rather than the rogue subscriber the only target for enforcement.?
Admittedly, this would likely only be a concern for the ‘top’ few systems.
I also understand that enforcement of such a policy, once a violation is identified, may not be in the immediate best interests of C2; as a paying customer, is a paying customer, whether to a legitimate system or to a copy cat system. And the copy cat system also would be paying listing fees.
It would likely just boil down to ensuring that the ‘top’ systems can be confident that C2 is actively protecting their interests too.
I think it would become pretty obvious quite quickly if someone was copying a top system on collective2 itself. However someone copying the system on another website or financial service might be difficult to impossible to discover. That concerns me less than other uses of signals that are probably legit. Systems don’t last forever and loss of system edge one way or another is my biggest concern. Having a system and all its trades public can’t be good for the lifespan of a system,
I’m not ready to buy into the ‘all systems must eventually fail’ theory I believe whether that’s true or not depends totally upon the system.
I agree with what you say about ‘outside use.’
I’ve heard others express concerns that their signals being published may allow another to somehow ‘decode’ them. Again, depends on the system. A system based only upon MA crossovers; sure. But decoding other systems would be more difficult than un-boiling an egg, imo.
I agree with you on the “unscrambling the egg” notion for decoding many systems. Based on your name and image you and I probably develop systems in related ways and are unlikely to be “decoded.” However I don’t think that’s really the risk to the edge of a system. Just the visibility to thousands of people in the business that see what works will have an impact. They don’t need to decode your system, they will make their own–and that will reduce your edge indirectly. My first really successful system did what extreme-os does and I was running it publicly before extreme-os started… but it wasn’t my idea, I got the general concept from someone else who was public about it and the returns it was making. The edge on that concept probably still exists but it’s a lot lower than it used to be and I moved on. Look at all the VIX systems popping up lately, that’s an area you can see has a nice edge that will likely be dropping in the next few years from the attention its getting.
Also as a signal publisher you don’t have control of how your signals are used. I personally know at least one professional financial adviser that does nothing more than invest their clients accounts based on newsletter signals. As a publisher, if your system is good there could literally be millions of dollars you’re unaware of causing slippage and other edge reduction. That’s just the reality of being a signal publisher rather than something more private.
As for systems eventually failing… all you have to do is look around. Where are the 20 year old systems that make a consistent 30% or more? If they exist they are extremely rare and/or are kept very private.
“They don’t need to decode your system, they will make their own–and that will reduce your edge indirectly.”
I don’t see that happening. I mean, of course they can make their own, but it won’t be the same system. But I do understand that lots of people doing the same thing can affect performance–one way or the other.
Yes, my system is Drunk Uncle–there is a link in my profile you get clicking on my name. It’s run on one of the biggest indexes there is (S&P500) so I expect it can handle a lot of people following it. And it’s not an overly aggressive system (which IMO are more likely to live shorter periods) and is doing what I hope is not something that will have its edge eroded by being public. I feel confident about this system lasting more than a few years, but it’s still a worry.