Non Trading Losses

A strategy that was set up in July but did not take it’s first trade until September shows 2 months of losses ( I presume monthly sub fee ). If there are no subs then this should not be reflected in the results, especially when this is the first trade in September. Further it is reflected as a losing months in the winning month percentage. This is not right !!

Sorry but I disagree, that would be terribly confusing (only subtract the monthly fee when there are actual paying subscribers). The whole point of the hypothetical graph is to show you what the returns would be. Not including the fees would give a false impression of what would have been obtained.

The only thing I would say in your specific case is that you shouldn’t create a new strategy until you are ready to trade it - and if you were ready to trade but just didn’t see an opportunities during the first two months then it is completely appropriate to deduct the sub fee for that period - because any one that would have subscribed would have gotten those same (negative) results.


Why would anyone subscribe without a single trade been taken by the developer. It shows losing months even when the strategy hadn’t even started trading yet, at worst it should show neutral. Also it shows strategy as 65 days old, which again is a wrong reflection. If someone develops a strategy and trades after 6 months, does this actually means it’s 6 months old ?

The point is consistency, the graph needs to be calculated in a consistent, easy to understand way. Not factoring subscription fees at certain times (or what if there were subscribers but they were using a coupon that made it free for them?) would make a mess of it.

If a strategy was created 6 months ago and the first trade is today then yes, the strategy is 6 months old. Unless C2 tells you that the strategy doesn’t begin until the first trade then my understanding would be that the strategy age is based on the day of creation, not the day of the first trade.

I guess this gets back to my point - it is really incumbent on the strategy owner to create the strategy when they are ready to trade. All of the problems you raise seem to caused by that failure. Not sure why C2 should have to jump through hoops/make exceptions because of poor planning.

1 Like

If I was a scammer I would create a strategy and wait 6 months for my first trade and throw everything into that month. If results are good for that month then it would give credibility to that strategy and everyone would jump in to subscribe. Even though in reality it’s only traded for one month.

Sorry I disagree. It’s suppose to be a hypo of what you would have done since day 1 if someone subscribed. If you decided to open the strategy 2 month ago the system assume you didn’t trade for a strategic reason. But it’s still active, if that’s not the case, then you should have just reset the strategy before your first trade.

But doesn’t this give scammers the perfect opportunity as I mention above ?

Nope, first of people are doing that now. 2nd you can see he only made 1 trade or hand full of trades.

Most scammer won’t pay c2 fee for 6 months. They want sub fee now now now. Spam spam spam.

1 Like

If you buy a package you don’t pay any extra fee to c2. For example 1 package with up to 3 strategies, you don’t pay any extra for number 2 and 3

You don’t provide any reason to believe this would happen. Why would a “6 month old” strategy with only one month of trades get any more subscribers than a one month old strategy (with trades)? Anyone looking at the graph can clear see immediately that you have only been trading for one month, not six.

This makes no sense - developer would pay C2 a monthly fee and have no subscribers for 5 months.
On the 6th month developer kills it, returning 30% that month. Great. But IMO that’s still only a 1 month track record (and almost everyone else here would agree).
No one would jump to subscribe to that strategy except the morons who jump and subscribe to other strategies 1 month old that returned 30%. The 5 month wait is irrelevant. I fail to see your logic.

I agree with others here, fees should be deducted the moment the strategy is launched, regardless of how you trade. It’s the actual performance a subscriber would get. In this aspect C2 is getting it right.

1 Like

Yeah I learned this recently, make sure your strategy is perfect and ready to run live, now i have to pay a $30 fee to reset the 2nd strategy that i have to modify.

If you have a plan with3 strategies it doesn’t cost you any extra, whether you trade 1, 2 or 3 . So you could have 2 active ( trading ) and 1 dormant. Tell me something, would this strategy show on the leader board if it was not trading for 5 months but traded in the 6th ?

Sure it would, but normal investors won’t blindly throw money at something just because it’s “on the leaderboard”. A 2 second glance at the system will show that it’s only really traded one month. Anyone with a brain would wait to see a real track record develop.

1 Like