The new “Profile” change has a nasty side effect – any systems a vendor has created which are no longer supported (often but not always due to the system crashing) are no longer visible under the vendor’s profile.
This means to hide terrible performance of a system all a vendor has to do is stop paying for the system and unless a new user knows the system’s name, there’s no way to link it to him. I think this is a big step backwards and makes it much easier for the scam artists who target C2 to suck in victims.
Regards,
Dave
I completely agree. I had made a post about this same issue over the weekend, but did not hear anything back from Matthew. I also agree that this is a big step backwards for C2, and will probably cause many C2 members to lose a lot of money that they wouldn’t have risked had they known about a vendor’s history. After all, forewarned is forearmed.
Regards,
Jeff
No one can be scammed here, all that can happen is for people to jump on a young system that needed more time to expose itself. This applies to every system provider at C2 and not only what you refer to as scam artists. Do you think a so called scammers system stinks any worse than a non scammer system when it crashes. There is no difference time illuminates all! One year is not enough time nor is two. The younger the system the greater the risk.
On the path to becoming a successful trader there are bad systems, dont judge a trader by their path judge them by their success.
Another potential issue – Youtualfunds users can create multiple funds, and then only mirror to C2 those funds that do well. So a user will show with two C2 systems, both looking great, but in reality they may have 100 youtual funds and they only mirrored the best two.
Between this and the hiding of unsupported systems from view, C2 is pretty quickly moving away from a site where everything is disclosed to a site where only very knowledgeable people can discern real systems from scams.
Yes in an ideal world everyone here would wait for a system to have 2 years of data behind it, but it seems nobody actually does.
Regards,
Dave
I agree. System vendors should not be able to hide their failed systems. One vendor in particular has about 30 failed systems that are hidden. According to C2’s own text about creating test systems, the system must be declared a test system before any trades or placed for the integrity of the site. When vendors are able to hide failed systems then that harms our credibility.
Mathew, I’d like to see you address this question of vendors who have multiple failed systems.
It’s fine with me if someone wants to subscribe to a vendor who has had some systems that are no longer supported. Not every system will work but it should be transparent.
Hang on, guys.
The removal of the ability to view old, trashed systems was an oversight – a bug accidentally introduced when we rolled out the new Profile system. We’re going to reintroduce the accidentally-removed feature shortly.
There was no grand strategy behind this removal. It was just a dumb mistake. We fully intend to re-introduce complete transparency of all systems created, old and new – good and bad.
Thanks Matthew.
How about the Youtualfunds <-> C2 issue? That one is actually more of an issue as you can create dozens of systems on Youtualfunds, then move the best 1 or 2 over and it looks like they’re your only systems and since there is nothing telling you a system on C2 is actually a youtualfund system, users would have no clue.
Someone could use this to create an updated version of the newsletter scam in which a large number of “systems” are used and because of the ability to filter an investor’s view you can make it seem like what is random chance is in fact skill. For more details on this scam see here:
http://www.investorhome.com/scam.htm
Regards,
Dave
Mathew,
Please can you also create a filter so that the word “test” can’t be used in a system name unless it is a test system. Some vendors might try to change the name of a failed system to read like it was a test system.
Thanks.
