Does Matthew have the right

to trade any system at C2 for free?

As I know, Matthew, the C2 boss, autotraded my Dave’s Goofiz ATM and Dave’s Goofiz Opton for months without paying me anything.

He might have made thousands of dollars on my Dave’s Goofiz Option these several days. I worked him for nothing? It really makes me feel bad.

Dave, if your contention is true, that would be a disturbing development. For someone to profit from your work product without compensation is wrong.

At a minimum, you should be paid. After all, Mathew would still enjoy a 30% discount from the published rate, reflecting his cut from subscriptions.

The bigger question however, is whether Mathew’s participation in any system taints C2’s claim to be an impartial evaluator of system performance. His professed impartiality is compromised once he has a stake in that system’s outcome, even if there is only the appearance of impropriety.

I have no dog in this fight but I did find this in the terms of service page, note the section I highlighted in bold:


Collective2 does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Service. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible or subscriber-accessible areas of the Service, you grant Collective2 a non-exclusive, royalty free license to display such information.In addition, you agree to grant to Collective2 Corporation a free subscription to your trading advice. Once you publish a trading signal through Collective2, or publish trading commentary, Collective2 shall be allowed to make this information available within its Web site, in perpetuity.

And frankly I think its great that Matthew is actually eating his own dog food, especially if he is autotrading via TradeBullet. No better way for him to get a real hands-on experience of the occasional problems of C2/TB and ideas for improvements then by making himself a real-life tester.

If he wasnt trading any of the C2 systems I’d actually be surprised/worried, it would show a real lack of confidence in the real viability of this whole thing.

Now if you found some evidence that he tweaked his client so that he got signals faster (front-running) or had some other advantage over an ordinary subscriber that would be a whole different thing otherwise I think its great.

Pete, thank you for your information.

Although Matthew is very smart to put this in the service agreement, I still think this is not a fair agreement. It is just like we don’t need a lawyer to tell us being wrong or not. Jury does not have to earn a law degree. It’s just common sense.

Matthew wrote in another post:

"To answer your specific question, Quah: C2 makes an effort to protect the intellectual property of all system owners. If we ever find that someone is stealing intellectual property from the site, we will take whatever means necessary, including legal action, to address it.

In addition, we pay up to $1,000 cash to the first customer who reports a case of stolen intellectual property that we can confirm. In other words, if a broker offers to trade a C2 system for you – and does not require that you subscribe to the system – report this to C2, and (if we verify that the trading signals are being used without the vendor’s permission) we will reward you with cash.

As of today, we have had no reports of anyone stealing C2/system vendor intellectual property. I’d like to think this is because unscrupulous parties know that we will aggressively investigate all cases brought to our attention."

While he claims to protect the intellectual property of all system owners, C2 is using our service for free. Does it sound ironic? lol

We pay listing fee, c2 takes the cut for subscription fee, what else does it want more? Free trading signal? It might make sense for C2 to autotrade system for test purpose. By the way, I even doubt this, what kind of systems does C2 choose to autotrade? Good systems or bad systems? Even if it is appropriate for C2 to test autotrade, it should have some limitation, for example, can not test for more than 3 months.


You are trying to use a completely unrelated topic to try to and prove your point here. The fact that Matthew is protecting a vendor so that a broker doesn’t use his signals to trade for more clients than he subscribed for, has absolutely nothing to do with the fact the he trade your system for free. If he was using your signals to trade for other people, then you would have a point. But he doesn’t and this isn’t what you are complaining about.

As Pete mentioned, this is stated in the agreement that he can trade for free. Why are you complaining about this now? Why not earlier?

I am sure Matthew don’t have to subscribe to a system to receive signals. This would be easy for him to hide it. The fact that he does that up front, show that he is trusting his own software.

You are just trying to blowing something out of proportion and cause trouble for some reason. This is fully disclosed that Matthew can do it. If you don’t like it, then you are free to take your business elsewhere. Simple as that.


- Fanus


You have your point. I bet many people might have different points.

It IS fully disclosed that Matthew can do it, however it is just not fair.

You are absolutely right, I am considering to take my business somewhere. I just don’t want to make Matthew richer while I can not get paid by him. :slight_smile:


It is openly, explictly stated in the Terms of Service that I have the right to subscribe to any Collective2 system. It’s not a secret.

I’m happy to answer any questions you may have about this by email.



Congratulation on hitting a home run and being the first to achieve >1,000,000.00. Try not to spend it all in one day :slight_smile: BTW, I’m in total agreement with you on not allowing anyone trading your signal without proper reimbursement. Keep up the good work.


Grow up children.

What’s the big issue if Matthew can use any of the signal services that he wants. - At least he’s up front and honest about it.

He still has to pick a good one!

If anyone is so precious about their system or thinks it is worth so much more than they get through C2; then withraw it from C2 and go market it yourself on your own site!

Matthew; you run a great site, and I would consider it a great compliment if you chose to trade any of my signals ahead of anyone else’s.


You have every right to feel that it is unfair of Matthew to subscribe for free to your system(s), and in fact to take your business elsewhere. However, the responsibility is YOURS to actually read any Terms of Service that you agree to BEFOREHAND, that’s what they are for. It doesnt take a law degree to understand the paragraph that Pete quoted, I’m sure it took him only a few minutes to find it, and it was clear, upfront, and consise. If you are too lazy to do that, you are the one to blame, rather than complaining about it after the fact. That is inappropriate and unprofessional, and reflects poorly on you as a businessperson.


I would think the proper forum for this exchange would have been private emails between Matthew and yourself. I’m sure it could have been straightened out between the two of you. Why wouldn’t you just stop sending the signals if you felt they were being used without your permission, anyway?


You said: "It IS fully disclosed that Matthew can do it, however it is just not fair."

Then why did you decide to use C2 to list your system? When you listed your systems, you must have read the Terms of Service and decided that this is fair enough for you to continue and use C2. Now all of a sudden you don’t think this is fair anymore.

If you agree on something, you cannot afterwards start crying that this is not fair. It was/is your own choice.


- Fanus

It really surprised me that everybody is pointing their fingers at Dave. As the owner of a website, Matthew has every right to know any message/signal happening in his site, especially it was explicitly stated in a statement none of us read. But, “KNOWING IT " and " PROFITING FROM IT” are so different.

Even the " impartiality " issue isn’t considered, I think using Dave’s signal to trade without his permission is unacceptable. Dave traded mid-cap ITM option, any option trader knows: a big buy order can easily push the IV(or price ) of those illiquid option 20,30% up. That is maybe one of the reasons Dave kept his subscription fee so high that not too many people can subscribe.


Even more, vendors have the option to unsubscribe subscribers to their systems.

The Terms of Service is there for everyone to see, Dave could have used e-mail to get the facts, he could have unsubscribed Matthew, but yet he didn’t chose any of those venues. One have to wonder what his real motive is behind his postings.


- Fanus

Comments like these would only make one leave C2. It takes a man to forgive and a great man to ask for forgiveness.

There are several ways one could get compensated. As I am aware, C2 is a corporation. It can appoint directors who are compensated by a yearly/quarterly/monthly nominal salary and things like that. Think long-term and don’t fret about the short-term. I dont speak for MK but I think he can be generous for the truly deserved. Afterall who conceived the concept of C2 and made it a reality and where the heck is the competition?

One should trust the market. Under capitalism, as reputable economists have demonstrated repeatedly, a private monopoly can be gained and kept only through merit; without governmental favors, it is impossible for anyone to monopolize evan a single product and then, enjoying a life of stagnant ease, use his property to “exploit” others.

The moment a person attempts to set prices above (or wages below) the market level, he invites competition - competition on the consumer’s level, as men turn to other products (or employers); and/or, what is ultimately more important, competition on the producers level, as capitalists move money into the stagnant field in order to compete for the higher profits.

If the boss or the CEO in a free system does try the irrational in his business, the result is a temporary inconvenience to the rational worker, consumer, or investor, who must look elsewhere to satisfy his need; the long-range harm is suffered by the irrationalist himself, when the lookers find or create by themselves what they are seeking.

In a publicly owned system, by contrast, there is no “elsewhere” for men to look: jobs, wages, hours, consumption, and production are set by a single entity, the state. How in logic can an anticapitalist thinker claim to detest men’s “dependence” on an “excessively powerful” private employer or supplier, then propose as a solution that everyone be forced by law to deal with a single, omnipotent employer-supplier?


Nobody can see Matthew on the subscriber list even if he subscribes.

Fanus, your comments really make me feel sorry for your understanding of this issue.

The point is : Matthew’s act has already affected Dave’s trading and issuing signals .

If C2 and Matthew is the referee of a game, they can look at coachs’ board and know their game plan, nobady will complain about it. But after looking at the game plan, making a phone to his buddy in Vegas to bet is another story.

If Matthew’s free subscriptions are for the purpose of generating real slippage and autotrade realism factors then it is justified. I would encourage him to trade all systems.

Dave’s question in his very first post is:

“Does Matthew have the right… to trade any system on C2 for free?”.

The answer is very clearly YES. This is clearly stated in the Terms of Service. Period. Case Closed.

Your statement of: “The point is : Matthew’s act has already affected Dave’s trading and issuing signals .” have nothing to do with the case and this is NOT what Dave is complaining about. So, this is NOT the point and indicates that you don’t have an understanding of the issue.

Frankly, if I am Matthew I would consider legal action against you for making a statement like that and you better be able to prove it.


- Fanus