i think it would be a good idea to show the number of actual subscribers of each system in the grid. it would be another method of analysis for members of the public to assertain which systems are successfull trading strategies… what are everyones thoughts on this?
Is that really what it would be telling you though?
On C2 short-term high win % systems are much more popular than long-term systems and have more subscribers but that doesn’t mean they are more successful trading strategies.
As an example take a look at ‘Positive Forex’, one of the most popular systems ever on C2, with over 20,000 page views and featured on 445 analyst pages.
Showing the number of subscribers would only help ascertain which systems have been most successful in attracting subscribers, NOT which systems are successful trading strategies.
But shouldnt that just be info for the vendor only, it being financial info?
not necessarily. Some vendors:
—Might want few subscribers, and charge a high price (or the opposite)
—Might be in a startup mode, and keeping the price low/free to attract future subscribers
—Might have capped the number of subscribers
—Might have a large drawdown, where subs fled, but it actually might be a longterm good system.
—MIght have some of the subs go to the vendor’s private site rather than here (as TMG did)
And as the other said, it is unlikely you will get this revealed. The closest you might get, is the “popularity” function
As a vendor, trying to produce a successful system with as many subscribers as possible, I feel it would be beneficial to have access to the subscriber numbers to evaluate what particular type of system people are prepared to pay for… and what amout of money is adequate for a subscription to a system which produces X amount of profit…
Hi Sean. I think you may be getting sidetracked. As a trader and vendor it is most important to trade successfully. Any distraction from that and your trading does not do as well. There are some good examples of that here lately. Trading is the hardest thing I have ever done. Why lose my focus and direct my attention to something that does not matter? Good Luck Rick Haines
well, you ain’t gonna get it. This has been requested many times
It would be useful to have some subscriber information and it doesn’t necessarily require that individual systems be revealed. A “grid-like” mechanism could be set up with filters such as: subscriber price, stocks/forex/futures/options, shortterm/longterm, sharpe ratio, drawdown, length of time system has been around, etc. When the user sets up the filters then average number of subscribers is displayed by C2. This would give some idea of what kind of system vendors should provide and numbers to shoot for.
I agree it would be interesting if nothing else but I’m pretty sure MK would never want to give us any idea of the actual numbers, I certainly wouldn’t if I were him and I owned C2.
Think about it, you would be revealing the total depth and capacity of the C2 subscriber base and that may not be a good thing, a vendor could easily conclude it isn’t worth their while to continue.
Take it to it’s logical extreme, imagine if all the subscriber numbers or average subs for a given system profile were revealed and it turned out that they were way way less than you ever thought, would you still want to attempt to devise and run a system if that system’s profile on average only ever attracted 2 subscribers in it’s lifetime? Probably not. But if that’s NOT revealed to you then you go ahead anyway and live in hope building a track record and your presence along with countless others helps boost the C2 total universe of systems and stats. If we all just tried to appeal to the same element it would kill the diversity of systems offered here, if I were MK and wanted to grow a broad array of systems and vendors I would never reveal the subscriber numbers.
I would agree with Jon here. Subscriber numbers are secondary to trading well. There not "need to know." If you trade well, they will come.
Having been in the subscription-model business for many years, I sure most people would be surprised if the numbers were actually revealed.
For me the useful number would be how many are active subscribers for each system. Often people do not renew for simply not knowing what (value) they are getting. They get confused or have unrealistic expectations.
Count on your hand how many systems if you had 100k to allocate would you put your money into? It is very likely that the majority of revenue comes from vendors trying to establish a credible system.
I have nothing but respect and thanks for MK, but at times I wonder who is behind the curtain. Perhaps he can let us know his thinking on this - but it is agreed that it would be of utmost use to include in screens system subscribership. After all what is wrong with transparency?
pS aka gA
FYI - kudos to Bottom’s Up, Defiant, Excelce, Have Fun, etc. (sorry for misspells) that have still managed to keep it up (staying power)! (and a few others that don’t rightly come to mind)
But I don’t peruse this site as much as some may think and well not to be mr. nego but i just saw VN Forex Club and of course recently Matrix Mania - WOW! I remember all the back and forth banter/“business activity” (lol) going on with VNF and the great prowess MM made us all feel. (He says it is now in test mode).
OK well I am still working on mine and look at things the way you want and say STAY AWAY total rip-off snake salesman. . .but come on I really have been “testing” market timing/past success with current C2 ventures. Oddly I feel quite on track and look forward to the near future.
But these are amazing examples - I mean KC CCF went down in 2 days - but I switched to futures from covered calls. And KC Elite, etc. were traded in an array of manners unlike my final (I’m thinking) versions. But MM, etc. what to say? I mean they HAD tons of business and wiped it out. . .how?
I have no problem posting my tanking system - and have all the confidence in the world in my current versions. So sue me!
This is an issue that has been discussed before. I certainly don’t mind re-stating my opinions. (They remain the same as last time this issue was broached.)
There are several reasons why C2 chooses not to reveal detailed subscriber numbers.
1) C2 is a private company. I am a private person. Releasing financial data along the lines you propose would make C2’s finances even more transparent than any public company of which I am aware. (Note that even public companies do not reveal detailed breakdown of revenue sources, for competitive reasons.)
2) Vendors are running their own private businesses on the C2 platform. They may have reason to desire (and expect) financial privacy.
Those are the “human” (read privacy-related) issues.
But the more important reasons have less to do with my sensitive and delicate nature, and more to do with smart business practice.
The main thing to consider is that releasing subscriber numbers has undesirable consequences. Winners tend to become even more successful. Losers (or young systems) have even less chance of catching up. The feedback effects are massive and probably impossible to overcome. And the effect on the C2 community would be overall negative. Releasing financials would protect incumbent systems at the expense of newer (and potentially better) systems. In other words, it would adversely affect the site as a whole – reducing system variety, decreasing numbers of new systems, limiting the universe of system vendors.
The idea behind C2 is the democratization of finance. Releasing too much data would have the exact opposite effect as what we want. It would contract the C2 universe and decrease the breadth and usefulness of the C2 platform.
I agree with you Joseph, my thoughts exactly. Any data related to subscription numbers / customer counts are proprietary information between the vendor and the service provider (C2).
FYI Matthew, thank you for taking the time to clarify you view to some of us that may not already have known. Again, thanks.
Also any vendor who wishes to disclose the number of subscribers is free to do so on, it is not forbidden, just not automatic…