I’m actually going the other way in my thinking. I presently trade the system myself, so a winning month provides income without any subscription revenue. I have always felt that you get what you pay for. I already allow for a 30 day free trial and will eventually eliminate this after the first 6 months of trading.
Rather than just looking at a track record or an equity curve one should understand the methodology of the developer, how he approaches his system development, the mathematical and statistical rigor applied and what is his overall back ground. These are much more important in the long run.
If you are just chasing performance and jumping from one strategy to another one, then good luck with that. I would do much more due diligence on developers and stay with ones that present their testing methodology and how they abide by their own rules.
One issue with C2 is for a developer, one price fits all. That is, if a subscribers trades one contract or 10 contracts, the development fee is the same.
For my strategy which is focused directly on the E mini S&P, trading one contract made 6% or around $600 for the subscriber. A $100 fee still returned around 5% to the subscriber. If a subscriber traded 3 contracts then trading in June would give them around $1800, so the $100 fee is immaterial.
My intention is that if the program continues to represent the statistical results of my development efforts and still remains within the expected Mathematical expectation for the strategy, the fee will probably go up and the trial period will be shorter.
I know this is not what you want to hear, but my income off the strategy is what I care about. I just post it on C2 to show people what realistically can be done by a trader who has 40 years of experience in this business and does not and will not over promise.
If you want the see what the methodology is and how it was developed, I have a data sheet describing the strategy and my background in detail and you can make your own decision.
You can reach me at email@example.com