1200 subscribers!!! - page 20
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
Already such whining is starting to get annoying
If you are going to continue to whine, nothing will change for you, and if you continue to whine, nothing will change for you. If you continue to sit here and whine, nothing will change for you.
And I have to get out of here, the topic has exhausted itself.
Already such whining is starting to get annoying
If you are going to continue to whine, nothing will change for you, and if you continue to whine, nothing will change for you. If you continue to sit here and whine, nothing will change for you.
And I have to get out of here, the topic has exhausted itself.
I don't know if they have any agreements with them, but I've already reached an agreement with Finam.
I don't know if they have agreements or they just offer them out of the blue to attract clients
By removing the "subscribers" line. Replacing this line with the equivalent of quality stars. Five stars - many subscribers. Taras and the rest of the top 10 should also have 5 stars in the category "subscribers' choice". That way you'll equalize the rights of the top ones.
After all, if a subscriber is faced with the question of choosing from 10 (for example) tops, he will choose the one who has more subscribers. And if they all have 5 stars, the subscribers will start looking at quality indicators, which is fair.
Instead of stars, you can use a scale of completeness or something else (you have a fantasy), so that the user is not unconsciously confuse quantity and quality. After all, the forex ace with the best performance three stars will seem to be a low quality product.
Do not thank them.
I think the subscription price should be regulated automatically.
For example:
if >= 300 subscribers then the cost is $30
if >= 500 subscribers - cost 50$
if >= 1000 subscribers - 100$
Then the subscribers will be more evenly dispersed to the signals.
..what the toad does to people...and strangles...and strangles...
..what a toad does to people... and stifles... and stifles...
I'm so pissed off! I also thought men were less jealous than women. But apparently not when it comes to dough!
To all who do not like the column subscribers, and in general, who apparently do not like too much information, I propose this fiches: You drop $30 on the signal, and MQ randomly connect you to a signal from the list of providers! You do not even know which one! How's that for an idea? I guess it would be "fair" in your opinion...
There is a proposal to create a topic where a person could pay attention to his signal, give a brief description, to answer questions.
And that this topic would be in the top.
On page 21 of the discussion there were a lot of sensible opinions and suggestions.
It is up to the administration of the resource.
It seems to me that now the "Signals" service is on the extensive path of development. Only stagnation will follow.
From experience: the elementary intensification of any process will inevitably lead to a 10-15% increase in revenues from Signals service.
Plus, the providers of signals will get clear criteria for rating their work.
Let's return: it's up to the resource's administration