Who is prepared to pay how much for a really profitable signal? - page 18

[[Deleted]]

St.Vitaliy:
And the turnover (number of subscriptions sold) is already on quality

This one https://www.mql5.com/ru/signals/1218

well... without adjusting for sellability.... he's been selling mostly in the summer, maybe it's a system.

[Andrey Khatimlianskii]

Reading the title of the topic again, I was reminded of the joke about violists (that's the musicians' chukchi):

Идешь по пустыне, видишь 2-х альтистов - один играет хорошо, а второй плохо, у какого попросишь воды?

The one that's bad. Because a violist who plays well is an illusion =)

So it is with signals - if the account is locked, it does not fit the category of "really profitable": either cheating (pipsing the demo), or random (in the future the curve turns over), or both of them together.

[[Deleted]]

Would signal buyers be interested in analytical confirmation of entries?

[Murad Odeyev]

The price of the signal depends primarily on the customer. Let's say a client has 100 quid in his account. Signals cost 50 quid, profit per month is 20%. The recommended ratio is 100/0.01 lots. It turns out that a client will earn 20 rubles per month and pay 50 rubles for the signals. If a client has $10000 on his/her account, $50 will not make a difference.

[Aleksey]

Murad.odeev:
The price of the signal depends primarily on the customer. Let's say a client has 100 quid in his account. Signals cost 50 quid, profit per month is 20%. The recommended ratio is 100/0.01 lots. It turns out that a client will earn 20 rubles per month and pay 50 rubles for the signals. If a client has $10000 on his/her account, $50 will not make a difference.

That's my point exactly. It's easier to put these 100 quid into PAMM. At least they don't take commission on losses there.

[[Deleted]]

pronych:
That's my point exactly. It's easier to put those 100 quid into a PAMM. I would have thought it would be better to put that 100 bucks into a PAMM.

The essence is the same) only the mechanism is different and the signals are much more transparent!

[Murad Odeyev]

Signals, on the contrary, are more profitable for subscribers with a depo of more than 3000 c.u. For example, there is a Provider with a 10,000-crore deposit making 25% on average per month. He has 100 subscribers. The price of the signal is 100 dollars. Average deposit of one subscriber is 5000 c.u. (Someone has 3000, 5000, 10 000, so I have called the average deposit). Provider gets 10 000 per month for signals. I.e. 100% of own deposit. A subscriber will receive 1250 profit and pay 100 for the signal, the total profit is 1150. What will happen in pamm? With a 50/50 contract, subscriber will receive 1250/50 = 625. What will the provider receive? 100*1250=125000/50=62500. Now who benefits more? I think it's obvious. But let's say I like only one broker for many reasons (spread, execution, regulation) and they have pams only from 100000. What to do if I do not have that kind of money?

[Aleksey]

Rugyi_cool:
It is the same essence) Only the mechanism is different and much more transparent in signals!

Nah. The point is completely different.

PAMMs do not withdraw commission for losses, while signals do - it is bad for buyers.

In PAMMs commission is composed of percents, while in case of signals it is fixed - bad for sellers.

I wonder who is oriented on the service to satisfy both sides.

[[Deleted]]

pronych:

Nah. The point is completely different.

PAMMs do not withdraw commission for losses, while signals do - it is bad for buyers.

In PAMMs commission is composed of percents, while in case of signals it is fixed - bad for sellers.

I wonder who is oriented on the service to satisfy both sides.

The seller has fewer problems using the signals and the signal price may not be large due to the n-th number of subscribers, which is profitable for the subscriber!

[Aleksey]

Rugyi_cool:
The cost of the signal is less of a problem for the seller, and due to the n-th number of subscribers the cost of the signal may not be large, which is profitable for the subscriber!

I do not mind. We will see.