Discussion of article "14,000 trading robots in the MetaTrader Market" - page 3
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I will express my opinion about the situation in the market and in algotrading in general.
14000 programmes is a figure that both pleases and frightens me.
I am glad because it shows the undying interest of traders and programmers in trade automation. It speaks about their creative search and desire to earn money in the market or near-market area. It is frightening because the disproportion between the supply and demand volumes for the market software is quite clear. In the past, the balance between supply and demand was artificially maintained. Supply was restrained, and demand was stimulated by advertising. Now, for objective reasons, supply is no longer constrained and demand remains at the same level. Question: What happens on the market when supply significantly exceeds demand? - Price collapse. In our case - loss of interest of buyers.
In my opinion, all this is caused by the wrong vision of trading programmes. The distorted concept of trading robots, in the minds of developers and buyers, is the reason for involuntary deception on the part of the former and constant disappointment on the part of the latter. Developers try to find and offer the grail, while buyers are always looking for a place to buy it. The fixation on the grail prevents functional enrichment of programmes. They do not evolve. Most of them are the same simple bots, unencumbered with features and graphics. They are sparse and boring. And everyone shoves a picture of a tester in your face.
But algotrading is NOT a search for a grail. Algotrading is automated trading. That is, trading that has been partially or fully automated. As we know, professional trading does not respect the idea of the grail and asserts pragmatic views on the market and trading. This is the kind of trading that needs automation and interesting solutions can be created for it. Market developers have been serving naive lazy people who are eager to buy a tree on which money grows for a long time. And everyone complains about their stupidity. But they could serve professional traders who need to automate their trading routine. And here we come to the next problem.
Over the years, the trading platform has been developing. It acquired new features and improved. I don't argue - it was necessary. However, the coders' programmes stood still. They did not rise together with the platform. To this day, they remain the same as they were years ago.
Objectively, now we have reached a turning point. Namely:
Further development of the platform no longer makes much sense. It doesn't provide anything more. Adding services for users is bad for the ecosystem. It will temporarily stimulate user interest, but kill developer motivation. (Only developers here want to be here for a long time, while users are with you today and with others tomorrow).
The only direction that remains is raising the level of software. There have been attempts to give tools with which software could be brought to a new level of complexity and quality, but either the wrong concept got in the way or the tools were very weak. In fact, it is both.
I like your thinking. It's like a genetic algorithm. Everyone gets to the top and stomps around, creating pressure. Then one breaks through the established norm, and after a few periods (hours, years, millennia, epochs) everyone is already far at the new level. We don't have long to wait :)
I like your thinking. It's like a genetic algorithm. Everyone gets to the top and stomps around, creating pressure. Then one breaks through the established norm, and after a few periods (hours, years, millennia, epochs) everyone is already far at the new level. We don't have long to wait :)
It's just that Peter diligently pushes only his own direction - he is the developer of a good graphic designer, and he tries with all his might to push his concept - everything is rubbish, and only he can offer a worthwhile product. There is a clear personal interest. But he forgets about other segments of this market. In his conception, only panels, lines, circles and lights, flashing, flickering, farting and inviting, can help traders - everything else is utopia.
This seems to me to be a one-sided opinion. Yes, convenience and user friendliness of a programme are necessary, but not always in graphic design. There is a whole segment of useful and necessary programmes, where all this stuff is just a weighting and unjustified increase of the programme's price, and its meaning is quite different.
It is clear that motorised slippers are convenient when they drive themselves to the bed, but they are often unnecessary.
If you make programs work only on the computer they were made on or only if they are open source,
then the market would become not just official, but the only place to sell it.
P.S. I still can't understand the point of free distribution of Expert Advisors through the market. What is it for? Help for poor traders :) ?
circles of lights, flashing, twinkling, farting and beckoning
In all seriousness, a person's flight of thought is limited by his own beliefs, and I certainly saw my own in Peter's words. Algorithm of receiving a signal of the most part of all programmes is based on standard indicators, which in their turn are almost all different variants of one indicator:Moving average. And this indicator is a simple mathematical averaging of the past price, which does not guarantee any immediate future. So we get monotony.
:)) I've been making a dozen buttons for myself, it's fascinating.
It's all well and good, but it's not going to work:
- Hey, dear, look what a tasty watermelon! Red, juicy, seedless, let's try it and you won't miss it.)
- I'm actually looking for socks...
- That's what I'm saying - try, buy, come back again!
I will express my opinion about the situation in the market and in algotrading in general.
14000 programmes is a figure that both pleases and frightens me.
I am glad because it shows the undying interest of traders and programmers in trade automation. It speaks about their creative search and desire to earn money in the market or near-market area. It is frightening because the disproportion between the supply and demand volumes for the market software is quite clear. In the past, the balance between supply and demand was artificially maintained. Supply was restrained, and demand was stimulated by advertising. Now, for objective reasons, supply is no longer constrained and demand remains at the same level. Question: What happens on the market when supply significantly exceeds demand? - Price collapse. In our case, a loss of buyer interest.
In my opinion, all this is caused by the wrong vision of trading programmes. The distorted concept of trading robots, in the minds of developers and buyers, is the cause of involuntary deception on the part of the former and constant disappointment on the part of the latter. Developers try to find and offer the grail, while buyers are always looking for a place to buy it. The fixation on the grail prevents functional enrichment of programmes. They do not evolve. Most of them are the same simple bots, unencumbered with features and graphics. They are sparse and boring. And everyone shoves a picture of a tester in your face.
But algotrading is NOT a search for a grail. Algotrading is automated trading. That is, trading that has been partially or fully automated. As we know, professional trading does not respect the idea of the grail and asserts pragmatic views on the market and trading. This is the kind of trading that needs automation and interesting solutions can be created for it. Market developers have been serving naive lazy people who are eager to buy a tree on which money grows for a long time. And everyone complains about their stupidity. But they could serve professional traders who need to automate their trading routine. And here we come to the next problem.
Over the years, the trading platform has been developing. It acquired new features and improved. I don't argue - it was necessary. However, the coders' programmes stood still. They did not rise together with the platform. To this day, they remain the same as they were years ago.
Objectively, we are now at a turning point. Namely:
Further development of the platform no longer makes much sense. It does not provide anything more. Adding services for users is a bad direction for the ecosystem. It will temporarily stimulate user interest, but kill developer motivation. (Only developers want to be here for a long time, while users are with you today and with others tomorrow).
Theonly direction that remains is raising the level of software. There have been attempts to give tools with which software could be brought to a new level of complexity and quality, but either the wrong concept got in the way or the tools were very weak. In fact, it's both.
If you read by key phrases, it turns out that it is time to remove coders, because they seem to be really slow, and what instead of them, maybe MO, AI...?:).
If you read by key phrases, it turns out that it's time to remove coders
Life is wonderful in all its manifestations! One person wrote it, three people read it, and everyone thought different things. Guys, it's wonderful! :)
If you read the key phrases, it turns out that it is time to remove coders, because they seem to really slow down, and what instead of them, maybe MO, AI...?:).
It's not the coders that are slowing down, and it's not the platform. It's the usual creative model that slows down - "I sat down, invented, coded, optimised, ran it". All in 3 days. Sometimes in 1 day.
You can't grow any further? Is this the pinnacle of algo-trading? The peak of our imagination? I just want to open the door to a new world. A world of complex applications.
There will be competition and development. Maybe some of it will be D.O.D., some of it will be AI. User interaction, semi-automation...
A new world.