Hi Matthew,
A future goal for C2 would be to only allow system developers to trade from REAL accounts, with REAL money… no more demos.
Too many developers here I noticed just got for broke hoping to make ridiculous returns to “sucker” in potential subscribers.
There’s another website that I use which system developers can only send signals through your real account. If you try to link a demo account it will not allow it.
Something to think about. Just my 2 pips.
Thanks.
What a good idea - i think it may be to difficult to restrict it just like this but maybe if the actual fills or something is linked to the system owners account something could be displayed above the system that says verified - the developer owner actually uses this for there own account.
But i’m not sure of regulatory issues - i seem to remember that amatures can only post hypothetical results and CFA’s can only post actual results ?
But a great idea Adrian - Matthew - what say you … ?
Isn’t this what YoutualFunds all about?
We will soon be rolling out a feature which allows developers to verify that they are trading their own system with real money. Subscribers will be able to search for only systems that meet this criterion.
Great idea - I have advocated this years ago.
Matthew,
I like this idea a lot, since I AutoTrade my own systems.
Can you provide some more details on the verification process? For example, is having the system developer’s name appear in the AutoTrade record sufficient, or will more be required?
Good to hear Matthew. Subscribers should know what/who they are following. It’s all about transparency.
Steve,
No, YoutualFunds is demo as well. I just set one up and you simply enter trades via their website.
Great idea - by a mile the most important indicator of potential future success - I would also suggest that this factor becomes a large contributory component of the C2 score and also that it is separately searcheable in the grid.
[LINKSYSTEM_56316039]
What about reliability?
What good is transparency if C2 goes down and developers/susbcribers lose 50% of the account on a single trade and there is no recourse to do a pro forma correction because regulatory policy prohibits it? Where’s the ability to place a big asterik on that trade explaining the problem to prospective subs so they know t just wasn’t a poor trade, but a C2 error?
The priority here should be 100% uptime with dual redundancy, not more bells and whistles for the Grid.
We all want reliability. But even major firms out there have problems every now and then. Do you trade real money with a broker? I’ve used TradeStation before, here is a disclaimer they use:
"System downtime can affect anyone conducting business over the Internet; among other things, trades might not be executed at all or trade executions could be at prices significantly different from the price quoted at the time the order was entered. There is a variety of reasons why a user could experience delays or failures in order placements, order cancellations, trade executions or trade reports. Among them are: increase in volume and demand beyond system capacity; errors or defects in the software or the data services; Internet service providers having technical problems; communications lines problems or failures; satellite dish problems or failures; extended power outages; and sabotage created by hackers. The point we are making is that no system is perfect. Delays and failures are risks that you must assume. In using our systems, you accept that solely you are taking those risks, and that we cannot be held responsible by you if they occur, regardless of the reason. To put it plainly, you should not always expect high-speed order placements, cancellations, executions and reporting. We recommend that you have a back-up plan to place, cancel, execute and confirm orders if you encounter problems using Internet software and systems. "
If you’re risking 50% of your portfolio on one single trade, then those are risks you are willing to take. It goes to what this thread is all about. Risking 50% of your portfolio on one trade? I’m not sure you would do that with real money.
Yes, I agree, Pei Gong. This is why I spend a lot of money continually upgrading C2 infrastructure and building redundancy and secondary systems that are almost never used. The downtime earlier this week was the result of our data provider going down (which hadn’t happened in 8 years previous), and that is why I am now spending additional money to bring a secondary provider online. I learned a lesson and am working now to correct the deficiency you correctly pointed out.
Adrian, in the hypothetical example I gave, the trade didn’t have 50% at risk, but that’s what happened when the trader couldn’t couldn’t close the trade due to downtime and there is no trading desk to fall back on. The issue I address is not human, but infrastructure, error.
It’s reassuring to hear MK say steps are being taken to close that loophole.
I understand. But things like this happen. I used to work for a very well known trading firm… and when their platform went down, people would have to call the trade desk to close out positions. Some clients had to hold for a long time to get through. It’s just the risk we all take when trading online.
Companies do their best to reduce the likelihood of their server going down, but keep in mind that it happens to even the biggest online trading firms.
Like Matthew said, it was the first time in 8 years. Not a bad record.
Best of luck Pei gong… hope these new measures C2 puts in place will make their site even better.
Lets not move away from the original topic of this thread. Like Matthew said "We will soon be rolling out a feature which allows developers to verify that they are trading their own system with real money. Subscribers will be able to search for only systems that meet this criterion."
Hopefully this will be rolled out soon. I think it’s important for potential subscribers to know who’s really “walking the walk.”
To reduce the affect of the $1,200 software fee, and to afford the risks and costs of subscribing to a diversity of c2 systems… I suggest that vendors and anyone else pool their money with relatives.
So I suggest that your "verification" consist of sending 26c + 54c to the account, regardless of whose name it is in.
Another website only allowing real account? Do you mean covestor.com? It only allows to trade stocks or ETFs, otherwise I would like to play there.
The idea is good, but it is really difficult to do it. It needs a lot of money and technoloty,still far for C2 to go there. For example, current c2 does not support the option combo margin, this will be hard to match the real brokeragae account. Other website such as covestor.com supports real money, but it restrict to stocks and ETFs, also way too far from real brokerage account.
haha, if you can find ventual capital for me, I can build one website for you guys. Just kidding.
From a developers point of view, the costs with trading such an account (auto trade fees, commissions) should be comparable to industry standard. Right now, it seems like the brokers tied to C2 are quite more expensive, at least the last time I looked.
Kevin
And, I forgot to add, that I think this is a TREMENDOUS idea.
I believe developers trading their own standard would raise the quality of this site immensely (and yes, I do personally trade my C2 systems, including my current active one)
Kevin
