Is there publicly available information on this website about the current subscriber base in any trading system? I am curious to get an idea how many subscribers a "popular" trading system has & also how price may affect the number of subscribers. Cheers.
This has been a curiousity of mine also.
It would be nice to know what type systems get the most subscribers. If numbers can’t be provided ok, but what are subscribers subscribing to the most ?
I find it strange that only two people are interested in finding out trading system subscriber numbers. I would think that making this information publicly available would be useful to future subscribers.
The current popularity ranking is “…based on the number of times the system has been examined by people that aren’t affiliated with the system.” Who cares? I would think that popularity should be based on subscriber base. By not having this information available, it makes me wonder about the legitimacy of the trading systems on this site.
I’d be interested in hearing a good reason for keeping this information concealed.
There is at least one very good reason for this information to remain private. I can report from my experience in monitoring systems that a large number of subscribers can have an impact on price movement on entry and exit signals, especially in equity systems. A sharp trader can use this information for personal gain, which in some cases can be detrimental to the system developer, and the subscribers.
IMO, the only two people who have a right to that information are the system developer and the site manager.
If “…a large number of subscribers can have an impact on price movement on entry and exit signals, especially in equity systems” , don’t you think that info should be available to potential future subscribers?
I’m interested… I’d like to know what the subscriber numbers are… as a potential system provider, knowing what my potential base is, will help me set price points etc. It will also tell me if this is worth pursuing… which is also a danger for MK. If the average system only maintans 10 or 15 subscribers it could have an impact on the number of subscribers willing to pay the semi-annual fee to track the system.
When this site was first launched; there was a claim of substantial revenue being spent to promote the site. As a fairly active participant in retail forex this took me by suprise because I had never seen C2 advertised anywhere… I’m still not sure how retail traders find the site besides word of mouth. Having said that most of my work is now just focues on my current duties and I don’t monitor the forums are associated advertising as much.
One has to wonder what the ratio of System to Subscriber really is. There are some systems here with track records of decent length so you have to assume they are doing well or are being patient and waiting for the track-record to pull clients.
I used to actively promote my system by trading a live account and posting that statement on my website. Each time I would update the statement I would say as much in most of the large FX based forums… For all those efforts, and a track record that for two years crushed Barclays CTA and Currency CTA index with much lower account volatility; I could never average more than 20 subscribers on a monthly basis over that time. And what I found really odd was the longer the track-record was in existance, the harder it became to attract new clients…
That may not be the norm, but its what I experienced. It almost seemed that there was an expectation that, yes I was profitable, blah blah blah, it just wasn’t exciting. Slowly grinding out gains, seemed to pale against the brand new provider who threw up huge numbers in their first month or two… Everyone would jump into the fire and get burned and then go looking for something better… No one ws really interested in the slow steady…
I doubt we’re going to see subscriber numbers anytime soon directly from the source but there is nothing to stop us from posting our own honest numbers… I cucrrently have 0 and expect it will remain that way for the next three or four months. At month six if I haven’t seen any interest I’ll be concerned (just based on previous subscription rates)… I’ll give it another six months, after that I’ll have to asses what the cost benefit is and if there is a more effective way of promoting the system.
No, because the number of subscribers doesn’t necessarily have an impact on slippage or profitability. It is what those subscribers do, and the size they are trading. That can’t be quantified. A potential subscriber can always check customer comments, or contact the vendor directly if they feel they must have that information.
Why would MK want to reveal his subscriber base to the public in a competitive internet marketplace? He would be foolish to do so.
I can tell you that good systems attract subscribers. What more do you need to know?
And respectfully, why would you expect to have subscribers for your system at this point? It is new, unproven, and you are trading forex.
> Why would MK want to reveal his subscriber base to the public in a competitive internet marketplace? He would be foolish to do so.
Right.
Moreover, basic ethics (and perhaps legal concerns) preclude MK from sharing specific details of the private income info he has for his vendors.
I have stated this idea before, but the more interesting measure is the percentage of UNsubscribers. What I would like to know, as a potential subscriber, is the percentage of subscribers to a particular system that unsubscribes within 1, 3 and 6 months.
If this is low, I can be reasonable confident that the system lived up to people’s expectations.
If it is high, and I don’t see any sudden drops in equity etc., it gives an indication that the hypothetical performance shown on C2 might be different from performance in real-life.
Many times, subscriber’s views on slippage, tradability etc. stated in the reviews are not consistent and subjective at best. The same is true for the frequently contested Realism Factor. The percentage UNsubscribers is a more objective measure.
Anyone who has managed money in the past can tell you that customers leave for many reasons that have nothing to do with system performance. They may want to put funds into other areas, their lifetstyle changes, they can’t monitor trades, they become ill or infirm, etc. etc. etc.
I agree, but I’d expect this percentage to be reasonably stable across systems. Thus, if systems have an average 30% unsubscribers within 3 months, for reasons you indicated, but one system shows 60% while maintaining a fairly stable hypothetical equity curve, this should still be informative.
I think it would be reasonable for MK to provide a percentage breakdown of C2 membership as follows.
1) system subscribers
2) system developers
3) both of the above
4) none of the above (specators only)
I expect that the vast majority of C2 members are developers (group 2) and that there are proportionately far fewer system subscribers (group 1).
Personally, I am not going to buy advertising on C2 until my system has a track record of at least a few months and I am satisfied that C2 has enough members that are system subscribers who are not system developers (group 1).
I agree with that idea. I’ve also suggested that a while ago. OTOH, it can be argued that only objective information should be passed (like the statistics) or clearly subjective information (like the reviews), but not subjective information that looks objective (like the percentage unsubscribers). I don’t care about random fluctuations like subscribers who are marrying, but there can be systematic biases too (e.g. depending on what the vendor writes on the forum). With a review you can at least weigh the relevance of the arguments. This is impossible if the % unsubscribers is reported.
I didn’t mean to imply I felt I should have subscribers now; I have no expectation that I will see any real interest for several months… maybe longer.
Right now my subscriber level is set to zero; past experience has taught me, traders who are willing to jump in at the very beginning tend to be your worst customers because they have little anticipation of what is coming down the road.
I anticipate running in this mode for the first quarter of the year and will open the doors at that point if the track record, volatility and yes, the ADP 
are within acceptable levels.
>only objective information should be passed (like the statistics) or clearly subjective information (like the reviews), but not subjective information that looks objective (like the percentage unsubscribers).
I’m glad that atleast somebody finally recognizes this and grants the same cognitive aspect to our thought processes as one grants to other processes…
No one would argue that man eats bread rather than stones purely as a matter of “convenience.”
.
It is time to abandon the illusion that there is no right or wrong way of forming concepts and we should revert to the safety of the time when we do not have to “trust” objective evidence but could rely on procedures prescribed by CFTC or NASD because that is the way 99.9% in the industry has voluntarily adopted!..
Logic, including the recognition of context and hierarchy is the method of achieving objectivity. This is the knowledge that is necessary to convert objectivity from an elusive ideal to normal actuality. It is this knowledge that enables one to base his conclusions on reality, but to do it consciously and methodically - to know that he is doing it and by what means - i.e., to be in control of the process of cognition.
This really is a quantum leap and I wish that others would be a part of the same objectivity.
I don’t see why the % unsubscribers is not objective. Let’s suppose I consider myself a “typical” subscriber. Meaning, I have on average about the same skill (and luck) of finding an optimal system to subscribe to, as the average C2 member. In that case my best guess if I will unsubscribe myself within a month after subscribing, is the % of C2 members that unsubscribed in the past. If I know the probability of unsubscribing is 80%, I must have a lot of confidence that I’m somehow different from the “typical” subscriber before it makes sense for me to subscribe.
Of course, past unsubscription rates might have limited predictive power for future unsubscription rates, but that is equally true for any other statistic reported by C2.
Science Trader
I don’t see why the % unsubscribers is not objective.
Moreover, it’s meaningless. You don’t consider trial periods and rotation of curiosity 
So majority of subscribers will subscribe to a system out of a curiosity first. From the point you won’t be able to recognize the curious one and real subscribers who trade the system.
You might have high % of unsubscribers and it’ll mean nothing.
If I know the probability of unsubscribing is 80%, I must have a lot of confidence
It’s funny, but I had exactly the same ratio from people who just tried the system trial period.
So you’ll need additional stats that will shows unsubscribtion by some categories, right? e.g. length of subscribtion.
Meaningless again, earlier subscribers have an advantage of previous system performance. You don’t have the advantage, because you cannot say that you’ll be able to stay with a system with usage of previous profit and wait new one.
What else?
Donald Pirl
I expect that the vast majority of C2 members are developers (group 2) and that there are proportionately far fewer system subscribers (group 1).
I give you a number. Only ~3% of Tango subscribers were system vendors from C2.
Sam Cook
Moreover, basic ethics (and perhaps legal concerns) preclude MK from sharing specific details of the private income info he has for his vendors.
Right. I wouldn’t agree to share the info with somebody who wants to estimate their time. The first I don’t like sniffers in my pocket. I think my wife and IRS is enough. lol The second it’s free world you can provide your service to anyone who wants to buy it. Right?
And anyway number of subscribers will show nothing as well, because you have to compare BP of a subscriber (imho) for better estimation of his/her decision and C2 doesn’t have the info.
Eu
>I don’t see why the % unsubscribers is not objective.
I’m not saying that % unsubscribers is subjective; rather the reason for unsubscribing may be subjective and open to whim, mainly because no objective rules for properly evaluating a system/method at C2 exist, not that it cannot ever be discovered or never has been discovered…
>Of course, past unsubscription rates might have limited predictive power for future unsubscription rates, but that is equally true for any other statistic reported by C2.
Logical processing of an idea or concept within a specific context of knowledge is necessary and sufficient to establish the idea’s or concept’s truth. The point is that one cannot demand omniscience.
We are all beings of limited knowledge and therefore we must identify the cognitive context of our conclusions. In any situtation where there is reason to supspect that a variety of factors is relevant to the truth, only some of which are presently known, we are obliged to acknowlege this fact. The implicit or explicit preamble to our conclusion must be: “On the basis of the available evidence, i.e., within the context of the factors so far discovered, the following is the proper conclusion to draw.” Thereafter, the individual must continue to observe and identify, should new information warrant it, one must qualify his conclusion accordingly.
> It is time to abandon the illusion that there is no right or wrong way of forming concepts and we should revert to the safety of the time when we do not have to “trust” objective evidence but could rely on procedures prescribed by CFTC or NASD because that is the way 99.9% in the industry has voluntarily adopted!..
Are you using Borat’s accountant too? Maybe his broker? Show us how
you do the math to make your systems come out in the black. I guess you are saying we should all be “brave free men” allowed to concoct the books anyway we want to make ourselves look profitable. Ever wonder why Howard Roark wasn’t an accountant?
Here is the point of C2: a level fair means to compare systems’ performances. Moreover, the closer it is to the the real world
(NFA, CFTC, CTA’s, Brokers, etc) the better we can compare apples to apples.
