The advantages of trading signals and the disadvantages of payment.
Greetings, this issue has been discussed many times, check the forum for a fact about signals
Here is an example.
2.if the buyer has a bad signal and does not make a profit, he has no way of getting his money back. And yet, the buyer has the right to change the bad product he bought, and if that is not possible, to get his money back, not to mention compensation for damages.
In point 2, there is a systemic error.
FOREX is not a consumer market, but a financial investment market, where there are no Buyers, but only Investors who try to place their investments with great risk.... Therefore all further reasoning is not correct.
In point 2, there is a systemic error.
FOREX is not a consumer market, but a financial investment market, where there are no Buyers, but only Investors who are trying to put their investments at great risk.... Therefore all further reasoning is not correct.
A we understand so much. I am not suggesting giving back the money, I am suggesting adding an option: to pay a % of profits.
And we understand so much. I am not suggesting returning the money, I am suggesting adding the option of paying a % of profits.
It is probably possible to make an intermediate option. Instead of % of profit, consider trading quality as profit and loss for the reporting period (month). Subscription to the signal at the beginning of the period does not deduct the amount from the subscriber, it only locks it. When the period expires, in case of profit the blocked sum is transferred from the Subscriber to the Signals Provider and the next portion is blocked for the next period. If the Subscriber makes a loss, the blocking will remain in force until the next period (the Subscriber will not be charged for it). The Subscriber can close the subscription and remove the blocking.
Perhaps an intermediate variant can be made. Instead of % of profit consider trading quality as profit and loss for the reporting period (month). Subscribing to the signal at the beginning of the period does not deduct the amount from the subscriber, it only blocks it. When the period expires, in case of profit the blocked sum is transferred from the Subscriber to the Signals Provider and the next portion is blocked for the next period. If a loss occurs, the blocking remains for the next period (i.e. no money is deducted from the subscriber), and the subscriber can close the subscription and remove the blocking.
This is not a bad idea.
The point is that a buyer buying a signal for $30, for example, can make a profit hundreds, thousands of times over. This is not fair.
And investors will no longer invest, but will buy signals themselves. To avoid this, the fee for the signal should be a % of profit.
This is not a bad idea.
The point is that a buyer buying a signal for $30, for example, can make a profit hundreds, thousands of times over. This is not fair.
And investors will no longer invest, but will buy signals themselves. In order to avoid it, you have to pay for the signal as a % of profit.
Why is it not fair? I agree to give out such profitable signals for $30....
Believe me, if he can make hundreds, thousands of times more profit...
he can proportionally lose.... the risk is disproportionate...
Why do people think about the profits and not the risk?
Probably, you can make an intermediate variant. Instead of % of profit consider the quality of trading as profit and loss for the reporting period (month). Subscribing to the signal at the beginning of the period does not debit the subscriber, it only locks it. When the period expires, in case of profit the blocked sum is transferred from the Subscriber to the Signals Provider and the next portion is blocked for the next period. If a loss occurs, the blocking remains for the next period (i.e. no money is deducted from the subscriber), and the subscriber can close the subscription and remove the blocking.
It has already been discussed.
The signal costs $30 and the money is frozen for a month. At the end of the subscription period the profit on the account was $28, including all commissions. The money was unfrozen and transferred to the manager. Did the investor get any profit? There was +$28 on his trading account and -$30 per signal. So he lost 2$. In this case, the profit on the account from the manager's work should not only be, it also should exceed the monthly cost of using the signal. This means the money is returned to the client.
Now, the cunning investor buys a signal (freezes $30 on the account), but his account is cents, and the signals are copied proportionally. If manager works well on a good dollar account with normal lots, then they will be copied proportionally in small lots to client's cent account. Accordingly, the client on the penny account will not make more than 30$ profit, and the money will be returned to him. But ... At this very time, he easily and simply copies these very trades from his cent account to his dollar account and works with normal lots, having a free signal with good indices for free. Can go further. He can start selling essentially someone else's signal - because his cent account is connected to the service, while his real one is not, and it is easy to connect him to sell signals.
- 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 worked for many years as an expert chief programmer and I think I have the right to give my opinion and make a suggestion.
When I found out about Trading Signals earlier this year, I immediately noticed that it is an excellent place for those who can show what they can do. Moreover, the openness and transparency of the system gives the opportunity to see how others trade, what mistakes they make, who has what strategy, etc.
But there is one BUT, and that is a fixed fee for the signal.
Here is an example.
If a trader has an investor, the trader gets some percentage of profit, let's say 30% of it, and it is a few thousand dollars. One day the investor obtains information that the trader has a trading signal that is sold, say, for $100. This is what the investor will do. He will not invest more and will buy this signal for $100. And it turns out that the trader sells his signal and risks to lose investors.
2)If the buyer has a bad signal and does not gain profit, he has no opportunity to get his money back. However, the buyer has the right to change a bad purchased product, and if it is not possible, to obtain the money back, not to mention the compensation for damages.
I suggest adding the possibility of paying a signal fee as a percentage of profit. I.e. the buyer only pays when he makes a profit.
Well of course there are difficulties in implementation, especially if the transfer of the amount will be automatic, not every brokerage company can afford this transfer. Another option is when the buyer himself transfers, and how to do it, you can think of something.
What is the opinion of the administration?