The advantages of trading signals and the disadvantages of payment. - page 2
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
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. So the money is returned to the client.
The signal payment system we have at the moment violates the law of karma (the law of nature).
The buyer has to pay a % of profit, and if no profit is made, he pays nothing.
If this is the case, the number of buyers will increase dramatically.
The signal payment system we have at the moment violates the law of karma (law of nature).
The buyer has to pay a % of profit, and if no profit is made, he pays nothing.
If this is the case, the number of buyers will increase dramatically.
apart from the profitable periods -- there is a cumulative drain on the trading results.
so the number of subscribers will not increase -- while subscribers will wait for a profitable period to pay -- their account and supplier's account -- with a high probability -- will be successfully drained.
if the signal is profitable for a long period of time, it does not matter how you pay - profit or time - the total result will be positive.
In order to search for payment methods in the signal, you must first introduce the criteria for the signal -- currently, there are no such criteria -- it is unclear why you pay for the signal.
The main problem is that the signal provider doesn't guarantee anything -- and the signal subscriber pays for something not guaranteed.
If the Provider provides a qualitative description of his signal, for example -- profit per week, number of trades per week -- then the signal could be evaluated and the eligibility of payment could be estimated -- Provider met predefined parameters, payment is reached, payment is not reached, no payment.
The signal payment system we have at the moment violates the law of karma (the law of nature).
The buyer has to pay a % of profit, and if no profit is made, he pays nothing.
If this is the case, the number of buyers will increase dramatically.
We have a good idea to do away with the free signals altogether.
It's strange that we made them at all.
If the vendor would provide a qualitative description of his signal, for example -- profit per week, number of trades per week -- then it would be possible to evaluate the signal and assess the eligibility for payment -- the vendor met the declared parameters, payment is there -- not met, no payment.
We have a good idea to do away with free signals altogether.
It's strange that we made them at all.
Aren't signal statistics more objective in reporting these parameters (average number of deals per week, profit)? The description can be very attractive, and the consumer needs facts, not nice stories.
the statistics report yesterday -- and the subscriber pays for tomorrow.
if the subscriber is relying on yesterday -- then he is buying nothing.
But if the vendor promises tomorrow -- percentage of profit or number of trades -- then failure to do so equals non-payment of the signal.
At least this approach allows to specify the signal -- to specify what the subscriber buys.
the statistics report yesterday -- and the subscriber pays for tomorrow.
if the subscriber is relying on yesterday -- then he is buying nothing.
But if the vendor promises tomorrow -- percentage of profit or number of trades -- then failure to do so equals non-payment of the signal.
At least this approach allows you to specify the signal -- specify what the subscriber is buying.
Andrei, can you guarantee that you will open seven positions tomorrow?
If you don't care about the market or what is going on in the world, but want to meet your commitments to subscribers in terms of position count, then I personally will not subscribe to your signal.
Andrei, can you guarantee that tomorrow you will open, for example, seven positions?
If you don't give a shit about the market and what's going on in the world, just to fulfill your commitment to your subscribers in terms of the number of positions, then I personally will not subscribe to your signal.
There will be fewer unsubstantiated promises - and fewer mindless subscriptions.
The signal provider should be responsible to some extent -- this responsibility has to be expressed in some way.