1200 subscribers!!! - page 115
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
For me, a serious drawback of the signal service is that the provider is not responsible for the leaks of subscribers' accounts. If you read the reviews, people's complaints are not that they have leaked, but that they have leaked and the provider is "happy". In fact and in fact there should be no such thing.
Yeah, and Taras got a kick out of it when he leaked. He immediately lost his chocolate, permanently.
So it gets really bad for the provider, too. Don't you understand that people don't have any tangible advantage over the market to trade without a tangible drawdown and the risk of losing everything?
Don't deliberately push rotten philosophies on the masses. Casinos and gamblers are not so easily banned by the law.
Subscribers also need at least basic protection. NLP techniques have not been abolished.
The law could ban leveraged forex trading, is that what you want?
Yeah, and Taras ended up in the chocolate when he leaked. He immediately lost his chocolate, permanently.
So it gets really bad for the provider, too. Don't you understand that people don't have any tangible advantage over the market to trade without a tangible drawdown and the risk of losing everything?
What happened to Taras' chocolate?)
What happened to Taras' chocolate?)
Yep. Not only did he not lose his chocolate, but he got himself a high. And now he can open a signal at any time, and start trading the same averaging scheme. People will pay attention not to what he lost in the end, but to the fact that he lasted 2 years, and that he will last that long now too. And half of the subscribers (even more) will not know who he is at all, the regulars only remember him and those who have lost their depot. So Taras is not only in the picture at the moment, but also in the long term
... Don't you understand ...
no, I don't -- and I don't need to understand anything -- it's important that you understand what you want others there to understand.
... is that what you want?
I don't really care.
The law could ban leveraged forex trading, is that what you want?
What is the relationship between an unscrupulous signal provider- essentially a crook - and leverage in forex )))) ?
Why are you mixing God's gift with the eggs?
Don't deliberately push rotten philosophies on the masses. Casinos and gambling are not so easily banned by the law.
Why are you suddenly pretending to be white and fluffy? It's much more honest to put up a signal than it is to smear a competitor to a customer in private, or to sell a plum net in private, not on the market.
What is the relationship between an unscrupulous signal provider - essentially a crook - and leverage in forex ))) ?
Why are you mixing God's gift with scrambled eggs?
You are not making any sense. Who told you that if the provider has lost, then he is a dishonest one, much less a scammer?
FYI, leveraged forex is banned in a number of states, along with casinos. It was about casinos and I replied.
What you're stirring the eggs for, I don't know.
What is there to be jealous of in this case? That the ISP has leaked 4 million of other people's money in one month? And yet he made his own money. That's not a good way to make money. Such earnings always come back to haunt you. There's a saying: "You can't build your own happiness on other people's misfortunes".
And in relation to this case, to say that the subscribers themselves are to blame for it is not correct. The provider really made a fool of subscribers' heads. She was the first in the signals introduced the thesis: "Drainage is not so bad, top up your balance, we will continue.
As for me, the signal service's serious drawback is that the Provider is not responsible for losing subscribers' accounts. If you read the reviews the complaints of people are not that they are losing, but that they are losing and the provider is "in good". In fact and in fact, that shouldn't be the case.
The provider should be responsible for leaked subscriber accounts at least as part of the subscription money. For example, if the signal balance is negative during the subscription period, the money is refunded to the subscriber. Such suggestions have already been made.
We need to be objective about the whole situation:
1. Keep money at home under your pillow. In 10 years, inflation will eat up 30-50% of savings (consider prosperous economies) and the remaining money will turn into banknotes, as states regularly update banknotes + control/accounting of income of citizens. Well, the days of rafiks and kamazes are over.
2) Take your money to the bank. The most unpleasant thing is a negative rate - your fortune in money will start to shrink, plus inflation. The bank may "burst" with all your money.
3- Put your money in a fund under regulation. From 4% a year conservatively and up to 10%, no more will be given, you will pay a fee of 3-5% of the money deposited in the beginning. If the economy collapses, you will be left with your package, if the fund is stolen something will go to jail.
4. PAMM account with trader's funds - the trader's responsibility is commensurate with his funds, and payment for trader's services is % of profit (20-50%) - no profit means no payment.
5. Local signal service. Costs 30-50$, with good opportunities to earn 5-100% per month on your penny deposit. Responsibility of provider in the amount of their deposit. A lot of Signals Signatories almost 100% exclude collusion of trader/provider with a certain broker (which is possible in the case of PAMM).
The signal we have discussed has increased deposits of the first subscribers more than 10 times - the lucky one who is not greedy and has managed to withdraw 5-10 times of profit. Maybe, these lucky people should take their profit back to somewhere else, otherwise it would be amoral because someone is lost and they still have money?