The opinions expressed in these forums do not represent those of C2, and any discussion of profit/loss
is not indicative of future performance or success.
There is a substantial risk of loss in trading. You should therefore carefully consider
whether such trading is suitable for you in light of your financial condition. You should read,
understand, and consider the Risk Disclosure Statement that is provided by your broker
before you consider trading. Most people who trade lose money.
I believe that the Strategy Manager should be able to provide a rebuttal if they feel the review is incorrect. And Matthew indicated on the Town Hall that he would be adding that feature, which we used to have years ago.
However, I don’t think that anybody without any “skin in the game” should be able sign up on C2, look at a strategy that he doesn’t like, or maybe doesn’t understand, and write a negative review.
I believe the reviewer should at least be a paying subscriber for some period of time.
As it is, the reviews have always been anonymous. If someone is critical of a strategy, I feel the Strategy Manager should know who it is. If there’s no requirement that the reviewer is a current subscriber for at least 2-3 months, it could be anyone on the C2 site, perhaps even a competitor of the Strategy and there would be no way to know that.
Before C2 had started this program called c2Star systems that were supposed to be less risky and to get more high quality systems into C2.
The way C2Star was designed it was always going to be a failure. The drawdown limits were way too strict but there was no limit on leverage. So the whole program got filled with risky futures based systems that had a lot of tail risk ( due to the leverage ) but seems less risky because in the short term the drawdown was low.
I don’t know but maybe c2Star was designed to get many traders to sign up to C2 for the guaranteed payouts and so make c2 a higher monetary return in the short term. It didn’t seem designed for the long term interests of investors / autotraders.
I suggest a new, reformed c2Star system. A certain international broker / copy trade site has certain featured traders that get higher payouts after a certain period of consistent returns and they are also supposed to not have “concentration risk” as in not more than a certain % (around 10-20% ) of the portfolio in a single position.
With c2Star it’s the opposite. A trader can have 500% of the portfolio value in a Nasdaq or S&P futures! In which world is this a safe system?
I’m not talking about a “low risk copy trade site”, but a major international brokerage / trading firm that also has copy trading and is a multi-billion worth publicly listed company and doesn’t claim to be be “low risk”. Now we aren’t supposed to list competing firms in the C2 forums so I didn’t say the name but you can ask ChatGPT / Gemini if you want to.
And in the traders you copy there, there are both high risk and low risk traders. And the lower risk traders there have to meet certain risk criteria like diversification of the portfolio ( not just drawdown limits like in c2 star ).
"I’m not talking about a “low risk copy trade site”, but a major international brokerage / trading …firm that also has copy trading and is a multi-billion worth publicly listed company and doesn’t claim to be be “low risk”
I checked a lot of these copy trade firms, one of them claims that they only select the “best” trade leaders, but a closer look reveals that their top Trade Leaders (the ones listed on their main page) have more than 50% drawdown after years of active trading.
In fact their #1 Trade Leader currently has a 88% maximum drawdown (after more than 4 years of active trading).
Bottom line: Being a “major international brokerage / copy trading firm” is meaningless, we need to look at the cold hard facts alone.
Improving Investor Retention: A 5-Point Proposal for a Sustainable Ecosystem
Hello C2 Community and Development Team,
I am writing this from the perspective of a trader and an investor. We all know the reality of social trading: when an investor’s account is wiped out, they not only stop following the strategy but may also leave the platform and never return. Conversely, an investor who loses a manageable 10–20% is likely to stay, do more research, and continue contributing to the C2 ecosystem.
To protect the “Win-Win-Win” relationship between C2, Investors and Traders, I propose the following platform enhancements:
1. Focus on Drawdown Control Over Leverage
High leverage isn’t the enemy; unmanaged risk is. C2 should prioritize blocking maximum DD rather than just capping leverage. For example, a trader might need higher leverage for new positions once old trades are moved to BE. This allows for account growth while maintaining strict control, as the total risk remains within the DD limit. High leverage is often a tool, not the root cause of failure. C2 should prioritize "Hard DD Blocks. The platform should focus on the total risk exposure rather than the leverage ratio itself.
2. Mandatory Strategy “Hard-Stops” and Fee Refunds
To prevent “blow-ups,” C2 should allow for platform-level risk settings:
Per-Trade Limit: 1–2% Max DD.
Per-Strategy Limit: 10–20% Max DD.
If these limits are hit, the strategy should automatically lock and all positions close. Furthermore, if a strategy hits the Max DD, the current month’s subscription fee should be refunded to the investor. This creates accountability and protects the investor’s remaining capital.
3. The 6-Month “Incubation” Requirement
New strategies should not be allowed to accept real-money investors immediately. I propose a 6-month seasoning period where a strategy is limited to “Simulator Only” status. This ensures that the strategy’s performance is based on a consistent track record rather than a lucky streak.
4. Trader Incentives During Incubation
To support talented traders, C2 should offer the platform for free during those first 6 months. This encourages serious traders to join C2 without the immediate pressure of overhead costs.
5. Adjusting Commission for Longevity (25% vs 50%)
A 50% commission is often too heavy for long-term sustainability. Reducing the C2 commission to 25% would encourage more talented traders to stay. It is mathematically better for C2 to earn 25% (from talented traders) over a period of years than to earn 50% (from bad traders) in a few months before an investor goes bust and leaves.
By implementing these safeguards, C2 can transform from a high-churn marketplace into a premium destination for sustainable wealth management. I’d love to hear the thoughts of other traders and the C2 team on these points.
If C2 offers a six-month free trial for traders, I can focus on creating long-term value for investors without the pressure of initial costs and I am delighted to welcome real money investors after a six-month “simulator-only” trial period. This ensures the effectiveness of the strategy is built on a foundation of consistent performance, not short-term luck.
Do some research and you will find out that a LOT of these so called low leverage systems on C2 blew up spectacularly (even though a ton of these losing systems are no longer listed).
Low leverage trading systems, while a safer alternative in general, is not a guarantee of anything, unless you can prove otherwise.
But yes. and this a mathematical reality, if a trader risks more than 5% on any particular trade, he will lose all his trading capital in the long run.
Unless he has a trading system with a very high trading edge.
Successful trading is all about math and discipline.
Any system can fail independently of the leverage, just because the trading edge is gone or some market behavior. But based on your words above (bold), if there are a LOT of failed low leverage systems, than there are MUCH MORE failed high leverage system. Logic .
In any case since you made some statements like above about low leverage systems on C2, then it is on you to prove them, not on me.
I am not sure what is your point here, but your last message just proves that greater leverage brings the strategy failure - first three screenshots where the leverage was 10-15 are failed strats with 100% drawdown, last three screenshots are live strats with profits, not failed.
Disagree strongly. If that were to happen, we would be flooded with systems: Rando-Man starts 10 or 30 or 99 leveraged, programmatic systems using the API, then keeps the best 1-2 alive after 6 months and collects subscription fees even though the only value of that strategy is that it survived better than the others in that initial market regime. Much better (for investors) to have trade managers putting skin in the game (through fees) to prove they believe in their strategies, or better yet have TOS cert on top of that.
I believe any strategy is worth considering after 6 months if it delivers strong performance while maintaining a 1-2% risk per trade and a Max DD below 20%.
.
