Why is C2 so greedy?

@CaliTrader, are those other services easy for the trader to develop and add clients?

1 Like

@AlgoSystems I have no idea… I just know that there aare others

I know there are others for some things like forex, futures, etc. However, I don’t know of anything that allows a USA based unlicensed professional to publish signals for stocks and ETFs. The only ones that are available like that require that the leader be licensed with the SEC because of the performance fees etc.

1 Like

Guys, some quick “rules of the road” -

While I can’t expect people to support my decision, or be happy about it, one thing I don’t allow is promoting competitive companies on C2 forums. I hope you can all respect this.

1 Like

C2 is going to survive no matter what. Last year they did a price hike on listing fees and autottading fees. Force developer and investor to purchase a package option or pay x2 more just trading or following 1 strategy.

As running any business a price hike usually the business is looking for a quick fix. The time it takes to find new customers is too long of a solution when you need the funds yesterday.

C2 will be here, their vision of what c2 will be in the future might be completely different than my. Same approach for these developer who come here for a quick buck. Make a few thousand in sub fees bust rinse and repeat. And subscribers who keep falling for those strategy, and the cycle just continues.

Well it’s disappointing news to be sure, but I take Matthew at his word that the price change is due to C2 losing money and not just due to greed. (I won’t throw in any Gordon Gekko quotes about greed.)

The thing frustrates me is that I believe C2 is losing money, not because of the February “crash”, but because they have a business model that rewards scammers and trade leaders who take excessive risk. This may bring in subscribers for the short-term, but it’s now clear what that did for the long-term good of the company. I think providing a (relatively) lower cost for TOS trade leaders is one good step, but there are other fairly simple steps that can be taken to shore up the quality of the strategies and make it more clear to subscribers what the good strategies are and what the scam strategies are, and make it much more clear what the real risks to any strategies are.

I would happily pay the extra 10% if C2 would change the business model and culture so that it’s a marketplace for serious buyers and sellers. I posted the following suggestions in a previous post, and got a lot of “likes”, but no action or even acknowledgement from C2. I’ll post them again:

The way I see it, there are really 3 main issues that keep coming up over and over again, and that have fairly easy solutions, but that C2 hasn’t addressed for whatever reason.

#1 – Gaming the bid/ask spread – simple solution – if the strategy has no subscribers, wait for the price to trade THROUGH the spread before logging the trade.

#2 – There is no easy way to see how much risk was actually taken to achieve the posted returns – fairly simple solution – do a “Stress Test” like Interactive Brokers does, calculating what a simulated one day 10/20/30% drop in the stock market would do to the strategy, display the current score and the historical score. It’s giving subscribers a hugely important tool to help them make informed decisions.

#3 – People crashing and coming back with a new identity and “clean slate” – moderate solution – verify system owners’ identities like cryptocurrency exchanges do, and if people return, make them carry on their old accounts.

I understand from a business perspective why C2 doesn’t do #3….but #1 and #2 would add so much more credibility to C2 and the strategies it hosts – I don’t understand why something like that hasn’t been done.

Well, at least that’s the way I see it. :blush:

I hope this is a wake-up call for Matthew and that he does make some real changes to make sure C2 is around for another 17 years.

David

11 Likes

This is of course without knowing the true cost of these things or potential regulation hurdles, but if I were C2 I would move towards:

  1. Consolidate fees for all subs regardless of whether they autotrade or not. Get rid of AutoTrade fees and just factor that loss of revenue into higher trade leader fees or % cut of subscriptions. Generally, the average customer of any service is going to be happier with just paying $20 once rather than $10 twice even though the actual cost to the customer is the same.
  2. Reduce the cost for new leaders to publish and reward good leaders that have been around and done well. In my opinion it would be better to charge leaders 0 to initially list and encourage more people to start. I have many friends that would probably use the platform if they didn't have to pay such a large fee to start. Instead of charging so much a month to list just one strategy, have a tiered pricing structure where C2 keeps 90% until a certain amount, time frame, or performance level is met. Then keep reducing the % cut as more $ amounts, time frames, or performance levels are met until a good leader that has been around a long time and has developed a good reputation can keep 70% or more of all sub fees etc. Basically reduce hurdles to start and reward good leaders that stick around and do well. I think to do this effectively though C2 would need to make sure they start limiting it to one account per person so that people don’t just shoot for the fences for free.
  3. Get more customers in the door with C2Broker by developing the ability to have free trading of your own money in C2Broker , similar to Robinhood. Then have C2 strategies as the additional paid feature. A nice simple app would certainly help too.

Again I know these things are easier said than done, but I would be curious to hear from C2 if any of these things are the goals or if they cannot be done for certain reasons.

1 Like

I am a little confused. Previously to today… you had different plans available, and the % that C2 kept ranged from 50% to 0%… is that still the situation? the % that C2 kept varied depending on how much the developer was spending on their plan

1 Like

C2 is not overtly ‘greedy’ - but perhaps more sophisticated than that. They know the best long term gradual-return strategies are a harder sell than the quick-buck, over-leveraged, fly-by-night strategies which C2 is ‘knowingly’ awash with, and makes plenty of revnue from. This is the lopsided business model which does not, and cannot ever serve C2’s long term, well-intentioned interests. In the same character as today’s ‘desperate’ survival decision to hike up fees - its the same bust, rinse, repeat formula, professionally packaged, which seems to keep C2 in business.

3 Likes

“From business perspective” there is no difference between 1, 2 or 3, right? They all go towards more reliability and more transparency.

So I don’t quite get why you understand that they don’t implement #3. For me they seem like the same motivation.

[Btw as we just recently learned, they don’t have to do anything to implement #3. They send payments to PayPal in order to collect FF miles. PayPal doesn’t let you create fake accounts. So they have this information. They just don’t share it with us.]

Where did he say that? The OP posted an e-mail he received saying that the percentage they take didn’t change in a decade, so it is time to change now. Interesting “justification.”

(1) NFA saying something is not a “proof” of anything.

(2) The NFA conjecture (or lemma, most definitely not a “theorem”) does not say what you are implying.

Note the “necessarily” in their statement. [This sort of makes their statement trivially true.] They do not say that past results can not be indicative of future results. It is not necessarily that. If I claim that “a system with at least 275 trades and an equity curve that fits a linear regression line with 95% confidence” is an indication of future results, it may or may not be a true statement, but in itself doesn’t contradict theirs.

So yes, a developer indeed can prove that they are consistent. (For some definition of consistency.) They can prove that they are profitable. NFA has no business here. Will NFA fine me if I calculate a regression model? Or they will “prove” that it is incorrect?

Not sure this is the best idea. At least for investors. I would think you would see many more scams if it was that much cheaper to list. Maybe C2 would take more of the fees but the scammers would still make something, and in other countries a couple bucks goes a much longer way and is still worth the effort to scam, especially if it is cheaper up front to do so.

I think you are right that it could go that way. You would have to implement one account per person by using some sort of validation such as passport of SSN etc. I know it is funny that I would say that since I have two accounts, but I really do think C2 would be better off overall if it did implement one account per person. I think they certainly need to add a stress test like David mentioned too. Going cheap for new trade leaders alone wouldn’t be good because it would just encourage scammers. It would have to be done in tandem with other upgrades. Basically if you help prevent scammers then I think you can go ahead and reduce barriers to entry.

1 Like

There is a lot of good suggestion on how c2 can change. But none of us really know the financials of c2. They had some info disclosed during their fund raising a yr ago. I don’t know what the financial look like now.

Let say they have 3 total streams of clients. Subscribers, developers listing fee and “clones” website fees.

They get fees from each of these pools. From what I remember during their last investors meeting, that the subscriber pool is the highest revenue. They get 100% of the autotrading fee. Which they already raise these fee a yr ago.

Now they are raise the fees they get from the developers pool.

1 Like

Why did you do this quickly, and not informed in advance? Tariffs would raise on September 1. And then we raise tomorrow.

1 Like

Guys,

A lot of suggestion to C2 now and then but I think C2 should know the money pay C2 alive is from subscribers.

The best way to get more subscribers and good learders coming to C2 in my opinion:

#1: Instead of increasing fees to leaders C2 should protect subscribers by limited DD of leaders. Ex, shut down any strategy DD >10% out of C2.

#2. Charge subscribers performance fee (30%) on water mark and pay leaders (20%).

All wins win and happiness if we have good leaders supporting C2 by good strategies and making subscribers satisfied :slight_smile:

4 Likes

anything performance based would require c2 to be RIA and hedge fund standards. so thats a no.

just look at this as a tariff hike. 10% tax on the developer, 20% price hike on the subscribers.

Hey PM dude, the truth is that your marketing tricks are all exposed you know won’t get more subscribers and, therefore, you are making an excuse to run away after the Aug subscription renewals. Please save peoples time on this forum and just leave C2 for goodness sake.

1 Like

It’s a simple case of " supply and demand". Unless there is a competitor (s) to C2, they can demand whatever they like. It’s a case of LIKE IT or LUMP IT !

2 Likes

I don’t believe this.

C2 is a platform, connecting developers to subscribers.

Nothing to do with a hedge fund (other than the inexplicable slogan they float.)

Why can’t a developer post a message like “Hey, Joe, I am so confident that I will make money next month, that if I don’t, I refund you $7.62” This is not “performance based”, this is not a violation of the “past performance” crap, for that matter this is nothing to do with C2. They are just a conduit, like any other social media site.

IANAL, and this is not full fledged “plan”, but I don’t believe that one can summarily declare that (paraphrasing) C2 has not way to filter out scammers and fly by night operators. All what these poor guy can do, because of the laws that tie their hands to increase prices.

I just don’t believe this.

On this note (the increase)

Just for accuracy: raising the price from a 30% cut to 50% is a 66% hike (for the developer) and from $99 to $299 is 200% (for the subscribers.) [Without even taking into account the functionality cut.]