As I understand things, the reset is the same as killing a system and starting over, except there will be a 30 dollar fee instead of 120 dollars for a new system. The track record will still be visible just as killed systems are now.
I think there is a big difference in killing the old system and new resets. With old system you would give it a chance to work since you stand to lose $120 but with $30 fee it would encourage bad starters to keep resetting until results start looking good. Here it would be the same system but if you killed the old system you would develop a different system completely.
You make some good points. Also, as a trader becomes better at trading a system or has improved it in some way, the new record can reflect that, while the whole track record or history of the system remains visible.
Brokerage firms try to attract successful large producers and give them perks and a higher payout. Universities try to attract the top students and give them scholarships. The C2 model seems to be to attract a lot of inexperienced traders and hope some get off to a hot start. This doesn’t seem to be in the best interests of the subscribers. It is closer to the “churn and burn” of rookie brokers.
2 Likes
Incidentally, I am not complaining about the new fee schedule for Trade Leaders. Collective2 provides a tremendous trading platform to test or trade new systems. As mentioned by AndreyBlinkov, the leaders charge $100-400 for their (often untested) systems, yet whine about $100 per month fee to show their systems to the world. Do you realize how much it costs to start up a CTA firm?
3 Likes
I think that increasing of the fees for trade leaders will wash out a lot of occasional system testers and demo traders, who just trying to catch hundreds of bucks offering doubtful quality trading to subscribers. Killing at the same time C2 reputation. Finally trade leader stayed with C2 will get subscribers from traders left C2.
From my observations, stable systems can easily get up to 5 subscribers to at least cover listing fees. Sure, it will not be on the next day and not even on the next month after the system start, but it is kind of the common rule: invest first, and then receive income. Or not, depending on the quality of the product offered.
PS I also know a secret of how trader can easily get this 100$ per month to pay fees. PM me.
1 Like
BTW its not $99 per strategy , its for up to 3 strategies .
It’s $99 for one strategy if you have one strategy and use the API like I do. This is my problem. Removing the API from all but “premium” and above plans was BS.
2 Likes
I understand but you can add 2 new strategies under the same plan with no extra costs .
I am on the side of david. When you are comfortable with 1 strategy you developed… Developing more for the sake of “development” out of no where does not make sense…
4 Likes
Diversification is good , relying on just one strategy technically will bring you less revenue . According to c2 rep c2 paid 78k last month to developers , so basically if you own all the systems you would have made money .
Diversification is an irrelevant point. Diversification is something you do when using systems, not creating them.
You are wrong it works both ways .
I agree with WenxaunHaung, developing more strategies just for the sake of splitting the costs is not wise, besides 3 strategies with the old plan would have worked out cheaper. Surgeon mentions more revenue to developer if they had more strategies on offer, I rather have one good strategy than few mediocre ones.
1 Like
I rather have a few good systems than just one good system .
More systems is better, but the point you’re missing is you don’t have to make them all. You can make one and then use several others on C2–that is exactly what I do.
Let’s be clear on one thing, this isn’t about weeding out ‘bad’ trading systems.
If C2 wanted to do that, they could do so easily. For example, with an algorithm that identifies martingale systems.
No, this is intended to increase revenues from trade providers. Nothing wrong with that but this seems like overkill and confusing. Plus, there are probably much smarter ways to increase revenue.
No doubt in three months time C2 will realise their new pricing is not working and revert back to the old way.
2 Likes
Yes the purpose is to increase revenue sure . BTW there are no more 5 free signals for each new system isnt that a good thing ?
2 Likes
That is great thing from both subscriber and trader point of view.
with the auto reset feature this point is meaningless if not worst for what you are trying to imply with your reasoning.
