I 100% agree that the disappearance of free trials totally hurts the ability to assert the quality of risk management. Totally dumb move, dangerous for investors
2 Likes
Out of 20 free trial users, one uses it to really evaluate strategy, the other 19 abuse it.
Free trial hurt good developers. Their good performance are not properly rewarded as subscribers are attracted away by free trials.
Good developers donât rely on free trial. They rely on their strategiesâ performance.
Those who offer 30 days, 15 days free trials are those who only rely on free trial to compete, whose strategies are mediocre , some even went belly up in bad market condition.
When there are no free trials, all strategies will compete by their performance.
Strategies with good performance will get good reward and strategies with bad performance will get eliminated.
As good performance get rewarded, there will be more good developers and good strategies coming in C2, so subscribers will also benefit in the long run.
I donât see how they get hurt. They can offer free trials too if they like. Their choice (was until now). If itâs mostly free-loaders who take the free trials, then they donât hurt the good developers either.
First, strategies compete on performance anyway. What kind of idiot risks his money on a bad strategy just because there is a free trial?
There must be many people who need more conviction to subscribe apart from looking at a chart or a list of trades. Free trials give them that.
1 Like
GalBarak,
When good strategies offer free trials, all subscribers run away when free trails end, so what is point of offering free trials?
âIf itâs mostly free-loaders who take the free trials, then they donât hurt the good developers either.â
Based on your logic, the developers working in big funds will not be hurt if they donât get paid. They can work for free and it wonât hurt them because they donât lose anything despite they donât earn anything. Your point is saying knowledge and skill are not worth much and it would be ok if they donât get rewarded.
âThere must be many people who need more conviction to subscribe apart from looking at a chart or a list of trades. Free trials give them that.â
1 out of 20 need free trial for evaluation purpose.
So 1 out of 20 subscribers benefit and 19 out of 20 developers get hurt.
Strange logic / reasoning youâve got. I think most people manage to understand the point I made. It is OK to disagree.
Oh, please, stop this!
C2 is a business. They want to make $$. They donât give a ratâs ass about fairness or about your (our) feelings, opinions, input or about âcommunityâ Why would they?
Sure, a competitor would change the landscape.
Or maybe they are working on their exit strategy right now. Do you know what potential investors are asking from them? Of course not. Maybe it is âwe buy you out if you show X number of yearly subs.â Or âshow $Y in the bankâ
What you think the ârightâ or âfairâ move should be may be totally off the mark, and as the saying goes they laugh (at you) all the way to the bank.
GL to all of us!
Why not invest in registered Financial. The management fee is 2 %. Other may use 2% plus 20% performance. Diversification is important but why do you want to diversify more than 10 models who are not registered financial especially for new developers who claim they can forecast make money but less than 6 months, the model is out. Bottom line, there is to much fees in here n the performance is not necessary reach 15 -20 YTD and can loss all money because of overtrade or very risky.
Some developers even do not know what is margin requirements in here, they just trade n kill the subscribers.
1 Like
I say the following with the caveat that from the perspective of a consumer I naturally abhor price hikes, and I think they can be counterproductive when trying to build an Internet-based ecosystem:
Price increases beyond a given inflation rate only work if there is additional value being added, or if the prices set were below market beforehand (either due to poor price discovery or more competition which has suddenly gone out of business or lost substantial market share). There can be exceptions for luxury goods and such (although one can argue that raising the price on those actually is part of the value-add!), but the above generally holds true in most rational markets.
So the bottom line is, if this is a mistake they are going to find out fairly quickly. If you double the price and lose more than half your client base, that is a bad trade, if you lose only 20%, it might be a good trade.
Doubling the price of something in one go generally means either it was grossly mispriced to begin with, it is something completely different than what it was yesterday feature/capability-wise, or someone is making a mistake.
1 Like
The increase in fees is really going to hurt the small investors, those with less then 100k, those trading multiple strategy can see about 7-10% knocked off their portfolio.
I was thinking about this just after I wrote my previous. In a slightly different context. Their next move very well may be that they sell themselves to a broker or register themselves as a broker or a CFA and stop autotrading every other broker but themselves. âThis is in your interest as we can develop better service and you are autotrading single account by now anyway and donât worry, we make it very easy to transfer all your money to us with a single mouseclick.â And at this point they have you, stock and barrels. They can change fee structure, commission, margin interest, management fee, anything.
Totally agree and others pointed this out too. And they had and have a ton of opportunity to add value. Lots of it was pointed out on these forums too. [And they do have the capacity to implement any of these as they managed to change the UI, big way.]
I donât believe for a minute that they didnât do this because they were not aware of this. They are very-very good business people! They know exactly the direction (maybe even the end-goal) they are going! Adding (meaningful) features just doesnât fit into this plan. Showing (to buyers or investors or themselves) that their user base can be squeezed for 200-300% more without changing anything fits better. It adds value to the business, not to the service.
1 Like
When you say that you could post some examples, but would not be allowed to do so, what do you mean? I would greatly appreciate some other suggestions for other social trading platforms. I have spent the last week looking and was thinking about asking for this information via a forum topic hear. I did not know these forums were censored. If you have any suggestions I would love to hear them.
Huck, I donât think Matt would take kindly to users recommending a competitor on his Forum. You guys should talk off line.
Thanks Mark, I was hoping anyone at C2 with suggestions for other social trading platforms would contact me direct. It does not have to be by forum. If you happen to have some referrals please contact me and I will give you my email address. Thanks Huck
Okay, guys. No hard feelings, but I think this is a reasonable place to close this thread.
