Personally I like Matthew, but your answer again make me laugh. This “lawsuit” statement probably will make a lot of people here laugh.
Ok, let me make it clear: from what I see, the answer to Dave’s question is not YES. That “explicitly stated agreement” is conflicting with most of the principles here in C2, not only other agreement we read and sign, but also the COMMON SENSE agreement between us traders and C2.
Dave has many more reasons to feel cheated and humiliated than Matthew has the reason to “explicitly utilizing” Dave’s signals.
Let me try one more time.
“Does Matthew have the right to trade any system on C2 for free?”.
The Terms of Service say:
"In addition, you agree to grant to Collective2 Corporation a free subscription to your trading advice."
Again if a vendor don’t like this, then this is very simple. Don’t use C2. If a subscriber don’t like it. Don’t use C2. If I don’t like what the manager at store XYZ is doing, then I don’t shop there.
PS: Your opinions and statements will have much more value if you had the guts to use your own name to stand behind them.
You are really funny. lol.
That may not be practically possible and even necessary. It might be necessary for scalping systems that promise great expectations and looks great on paper without the real-life slippages taken into account but encounter enormous slippages in real-time trading with real-money.
If a system is really that good on paper that it can be manually traded real-time profitably and then eventually auto-traded safely(I would never auto-trade a forex system however good it is on paper or manual-trading, nor a system that uses limit-orders because that would be a sure-recipe for disaster), I would expect that somebody affiliated with C2 would atleast verify the slippages etc., so that the honesty, reliability and integrity of C2 is maintained.
It is not good to threathen people in public. You might not want to cross the line.
Say what you want, it is better for communication, but you better not cross the line.
Please point out where I have threatened anyone?
PS: your last sentence sound a lot like a threat.
Fanus, I don’t have any trading system in C2 at this time , though I came here sometimes to see how my friends perform, including Dave :-). If I decide to open an account in C2 in the future, the motivation will more likely be to try to beat Dave and have boasting right in our own trading site, instead of making money on subscription fee .
C2 provided a great platform and I hope it can continue to do so.
I will state my point here one more time: Matthew shouldn’t have the right to trade any system on C2 for free. If this “right” is explicitly stated in an agreement that nobody noticed before they signed, it is not only “not fair”, IT IS WRONG , because it conflicts with most basic principles we agreed, explicitly and implicitly before we started our trading systems here.
"I would expect that somebody affiliated with C2 would atleast verify the slippages etc., so that the honesty, reliability and integrity of C2 is maintained."
The best way to verify slippages is to trade the system. Otherwise the true effect is not known.
"That may not be practically possible "
You are correct with this statement. He would be bankrupt in a week.
Did I say you threatened anyone? I just state that it is not good to threat people in public. Is what I said wrong? Is it good to cross the line? Don’t get me wrong. lol
Ok. Point taken. But you have to admit this is a different point than what Dave asked about. There is a difference between does and should. Dave asked, does he have the right. The answer is yes, he does. You ask should he, and this is different. For example, does the president of a country have the right to declare war? Yes, he does. Should he? This could be a whole different answer.
Regardless of what you think about if he SHOULD have the right, the fact is he DOES. Which leave you with two options. Accept it and stop complaining, or do not accept it and stop using C2.
And on a more general note… People always complain that things are hidden in the Statement of Terms and that no one read it. The problem is, where should it go that people will read it?
What’s your interest at C2? Are you a partner or a shareholder? If you do not feel comfortable, you don’t have to answer.
I know I don’t have to answer, but thank you for your permission. I believe this is common knowledge that C2 have no partners, or shareholders.
Perhaps the real question to be asked is “whether it is rational (moral) for Mathew to have the right…” Evidently, it doesn’t look so from a long-range point of view, but I might be wrong, as only Mathew can answer his real motivation for his own actions. Moral principles are not luxuries reserved for “higher” souls or duties owed to the supernatural. They are a practical, earthly necessary to anyone concerned with self-preservation.
The only alternative to action governed by moral principle is action expressing short-range impulse. But for man, as we know, the short-range, viewed long-range, is self-destructive.
What then is the standard of moral value? A valid code of morality, a code based on reason and proper to man, must hold man’s life as its standard of value. “All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil.” The ultimate value is life. The primary virtue is rationality. The proper beneficary is oneself.
Because of its evaluative nature, ethics has always posed a unique problem, even to those who had no doubts about man’s power to reason or to know the facts of reality. How, thinkers have wondered from the Freeks to the present, can value-judgments ever be proved? How can facts, any or all of them, lead logically to estimates, such as “good” or “evil,” “right” or “wrong,” “desirable” or “undesirable”? How can knowledge of what is validate a conclusion stating what ought to be?
For centuries, since the atropy of the religious approach to morality, the consensus among ethicists has been that these questions are unanswerable. Ethics, according to the received wisdom, is arbitrary; it is a field ruled by subjective feeling, dissociated from reality, reason, science. In this view, there is no disputing about value-judgments; there are no objective grounds on which to choose between production and theft, thought and evasion, Jesus and Judas, Jefferson and Hitler.
But, such a denial of marality is to be denied by all moral men. Facts - certain definite facts - do lead logically to values. What “ought to be” can be validated objectively. Ethics is a human necessity and a science, not a playground for mystics and skeptics.
The principles of morality are a product not of feeling but of cognition.
Ethics is conditional, i.e., values are not intrinsic. But values are not subjective, either. Values are objective.
South Park Says:
>It really surprised me that everybody is pointing their fingers at Dave. "
Because he asked a ridiculous question that can be answered with a simple yes.
But here are a few points to ponder about:
– Subscribing to any system is not without dangers. Even Dave has at least one blown up system, and you didn’t hear Matt complaining about it. Supposed he was getting a free ride on that…
– Dave’s complaint smells desperation. If he has so many subscribers why does he care about 1 more, who actually deserves a free ride?
– Wouldn’t you agree that coming up with such a unique idea as C2 Matt deserves to get a free ride on any systems? We have to reward genius.
– Wouldn’t you agree that if Matt is not doing well, on the long run nobody is going to do well? So Dave could look at this issue as his contribution to the longevity of C2, a payback for the opportunity for him to be able to list his systems.
– If you don’t like the rules, you don’t have to play here. Go somewhere else. Oh, wait a minute, there are no somewhere elses, not yet…
– Why blame others just because you don’t read the documents before signing them?
There were several other valid points in Fanus posts, I don’t want to repeat them. Personally I think systems with consistent realistic signals are more important than a guy swinging it big in options…
Of course he has the right to trade any system on his website. We all agreed to that when we signed the Terms of Service. Great service by the way. I can’t even believe you guys are arguing it’s unethical for him to trade these systems. He owns the sites, he clearly states he’s got the option of using your signals.
Clearly, access to the signals is part of Matthew’s compensation for running and maintaining the site.
Congratulations to Matthew for a great site and keep making money.
I don’t care much about the subscription fee. If I want to get more subscription, I can just lower my subscription cost to as cheap as yours. I care more about the profit made through trading, instead of subscription.
Even no one subscribe, I don’t care, let me run the show, ok? ^_^.
I want to help people to get profitable trades, but I will limit the subscription to no more than 6 months without special communication with me.
There is something money can not buy.
The site plainly states that systems are ‘verified by an objective third-party.’ A third-party is someone who has neither a stake as the originator (first-party) or user (second-party).
While Mathew has the right to use any system under the Terms of Service, it seems that once he does, his marketing claims of verifying ‘by an objective third-party’ appear to be false and misleading.
But I’m not a lawyer, so don’t take my word for it.
>I don’t care much about the subscription fee.
Dave, you sure are a funny guy. Read the 2nd sentence of your first post! That’s exactly what you complain about! That you are not getting subscription fee from Matt. Hello???
You run your show, Matt runs the website, I run the common sense. See? I am big on dividing the workload. Your post didn’t address any of my previous points, so for now, arrivederci!
I don’t care much about the subscription, but I hate free ride. Is there something wrong? Even he pays, I want to limit the subscription length.
Ok, alghout I have many reasons, let’s stop here, maybe I can communicate with Matthew via email.
"The site plainly states that systems are ‘verified by an objective third-party.’ A third-party is someone who has neither a stake as the originator (first-party) or user (second-party). "
Christopher , that’s an interesting angle.
Just to play devil’s advocate, I would say that the C2 system itself (not the single person MK) is the objective 3rd party since it enforces the rules that all system providers must work under.
However I must conceed that it is possible for MK to manually override the system to make trade adjustments to deal with bad quotes or C2 bugs. In that sense C2 could never be truly be considered impartial because MK clearly has a huge stake in the success of C2 and C2’s success is largely based on how its systems are viewed by potential subscribers. On the flip side the value that C2 offers would be seriously diminished if any bias was ever discovered, thus MK has a strong motivation to keep C2 a level playing field.
All that being said, I don’t see how MK trading certain systems would in any way affect C2’s objectivity (e.g. what would MK do differently for systems that he is trading) but I do find your line of thought more creative then those who simply complain that it “seems” inherently wrong.