Lower Minimum Product & Signal Pricing
I know this is probably not a popular opinion, and MQL5 probably had their reasons for raising the minimum price you can charge for a product in the market, but $30 minimum feels too high to me.
And for signals I feel like there are many more options available than a flat $30 minimum subscription price. For a $1,000 account, that requires a minimum monthly profit of 3% just to cover the cost of the subscription. This is certainly possible, but it seems limiting to me.
I would love the ability to offer both products and signals for $10 a month, because I feel it opens up a greater number of opportunities.
And speaking of opportunities, I feel like where signals are confirmed it would almost be better to structure them more so that the monthly fee could be a percentage of the profits. Since MQL5 has access to account information that enables them to track the gain for each account, it seems to me it would make more sense to charge 10-15% (possibly that number or set by the provider) of the monthly gain, so the months where a signal doesn't turn a profit the subscriber isn't out any more money than what they lost in trading. I know MQL5 has costs associated with upkeep, but it seems this model could potentially net them more than they are netting know. Maybe there are legal issues with this approach, but it sounds much better to me both as a provider and subscriber.
What does everyone think? Am I alone on this?
You can offer renting of products for $10 minimum regardless of duration .
Totally agree on the signals if feasible
You can offer renting of products for $10 minimum regardless of duration .
Totally agree on the signals if feasible
You are correct. However, I am referring to purchase prices. Maybe when they started offering rentals is when they raised the minimum. I had products listed for purchase for $10, and then couldn't update those products without increasing the price to $30. I'm not sure. There are just some things I wouldn't want to charge $10 every month, or $30 one time, when just $10 one time would be more than appropriate.
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
I know this is probably not a popular opinion, and MQL5 probably had their reasons for raising the minimum price you can charge for a product in the market, but $30 minimum feels too high to me.
And for signals I feel like there are many more options available than a flat $30 minimum subscription price. For a $1,000 account, that requires a minimum monthly profit of 3% just to cover the cost of the subscription. This is certainly possible, but it seems limiting to me.
I would love the ability to offer both products and signals for $10 a month, because I feel it opens up a greater number of opportunities.
And speaking of opportunities, I feel like where signals are confirmed it would almost be better to structure them more so that the monthly fee could be a percentage of the profits. Since MQL5 has access to account information that enables them to track the gain for each account, it seems to me it would make more sense to charge 10-15% (possibly that number or set by the provider) of the monthly gain, so the months where a signal doesn't turn a profit the subscriber isn't out any more money than what they lost in trading. I know MQL5 has costs associated with upkeep, but it seems this model could potentially net them more than they are netting know. Maybe there are legal issues with this approach, but it sounds much better to me both as a provider and subscriber.
What does everyone think? Am I alone on this?