At the moment, there is only one option for system managers to control the subscribers: this is simply a “Max number of subscribers”. However, this system unfairly benefits “whales” with large accounts, who can heavily scale their system allocation, yet they will still be paying the same monthly fee as a small account.
Furthermore, this can become an issue in popular systems. In particular, collective2 works in quite a different way to a traditional “fund”, where money is pooled, allowing managers to accumulate/distribute their positions slowly without impacting markets.
Instead, c2 has all subscribers performing the same action at the same time. Obviously, this is what c2 is designed to do, and has many great advantages (e.g. the money can stay in users accounts, their is clarity about the trades being made, it is easy to switch between systems etc etc). The downside is that popular systems can start to have an impact on even relatively liquid markets, particularly stocks. This is a situation where subscriber control can become problematic. Essentially, each subscriber takes a “slot” in terms of system availability, up until the point at which slippage becomes a problem and subscriber numbers need to be capped. However, some subscribers may be taking up 10 or even 20 times the amount of liquidity as other subscribers, but paying the exact same fee!
Not only does this seem unfair, but it doesn’t seem to be ideal, and the only people benefiting are the whales (who already have large accounts!). Personally, I think it is far more rewarding to be growing a small account than a large one, and I think that charging structure should reflect the level of scaling of the subscriber (or at least give managers the option to do this). In fact, such a system would actually reflect the “industry standard” of 2%/20% (or whatever). Furthermore, such a system would in fact benefit collective2, in terms of greater revenue.
Thoughts?