Is there an administration on this site? - page 3
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
So that the buyer can be assured of getting their money back if there are no funds in the seller's account, the administration needs to create an insurance fund, which could be created by withholding money owed to sellers on each seller's first sale.
The insurance fund from the first sale is not enough.
Not every customer will claim a refund -- in most cases out of ignorance that they have been duped.
After all, it's like -- a breach is discovered -- the product is withdrawn from sale and guess what's going on.
There's got to be widespread awareness among customers.
If this is done widely - then not just one but dozens of customers would demand a refund - what would they do in such a case?
You need to lock funds out of every sale -- and lock them out for at least a month so the customer can get it right.
And let's block freelancers for six months as well, so that the customer can figure it out ))))
There is a 7-day block, in most cases it is enough to check the purchased product and search for inconsistencies in the description or malfunctions. And you can check in the tester even before purchase.
And let's also block freelancers for six months so that the customer could sort it out ))))
Freelancers are fine with it - there is a whole procedure of stage-by-stage confirmations - the customer has enough time to figure it all out - there is even a built-in Arbitration button.
Freelancers, on the other hand, are fine with it -- there is a whole standard procedure for step-by-step confirmations -- the customer has plenty of time to figure it all out -- there is even a standard Arbitration button.
And the buyer has an in-house verification procedure in the tester -- what's stopping them from verifying everything BEFORE they buy? Bought - means automatically agreed to what was tested and verified (as well as in the marketplace - confirmed - what's the problem next?). Isn't it?
If there is fraud, forgery, and other caciques from an unscrupulous seller - that's one thing. The other is that anyone can now buy, make up a discrepancy and get their money back. That's fine...
And the buyer has a standard test procedure in the tester - what prevents him from checking everything BEFORE buying? If you buy, you automatically agree with what you've tested and checked (as well as in the marketplace - you've confirmed it - what's the problem?). Isn't it?
No. For example, the "tester's grail". Also above gave a real example where the seller deliberately injected time sections into the EA, which the EA in the tester just bluntly skipped over.
The trial version is not enough to test before buying.
In addition, until recently, the trial version for MT4 indicators was not available in the Market.
You, Artyom, understand it all perfectly well yourself.
Only the real trade checks everything. If we force the sellers to monitor their EAs on the real market and keep public access to the results of defeated accounts, the list of EAs traded in the Market will be drastically reduced.
p.s. So, the refund procedure should not be "secretly", they say it exists, like read the rules - the refund procedure should be standard, in a prominent place, literally with a checkbox saying "You are aware that when you buy a product and in case of ... you may request a refund".
...
Only real trading verifies everything. If sellers were obliged to monitor their EAs on the real market, while keeping public access to the results of the accounts they've already lost, the list of EAs sold on the market would shrink drastically.
...
There are situations where the robot showed good results in the recent past during a year or a contest time, like a quarter. The author prepares it for sale on the market. Moreover, it is currently disabled from the market because it needs the next (at the end of the forward time on the real, for example) to optimize the values of its external variables, but the author already has more work to do, etc. ....
So I think it is not reasonable and fair, in my opinion, to terminate the author ONLY on his creation, requiring his continuous presence in real trading.
The result showed (the ability to take a profit for a certain period of time), put it in the market + reports from the real + description of parameters and set for the optimization of its description, all - then the buyer has to decide what parameters to choose, how to optimize, etc.
There are situations where the robot has shown good results in the past during, say, a year or a contest period, such as a quarter. The author prepares it for sale on the market. At the moment the author has disabled it from trading, because he needs to optimize the values of its external variables (after the forward period on the real, for example), but the author already has some more work to do, etc. ....
If the author of the Expert Advisor himself does not trade - but puts it on the market - to what end? to find a sucker? -- Then it is a fraud, because in the description of the EA the author provides charts and talks/shows how profitable his EA is.
In this case, in the description, the author must clearly indicate that he is not trading the advisor, the advisor has shown good results under certain conditions, I am selling the workpiece, etc. -- If such a description is not made, it turns out to be an "inaccurate description" and according to p.7.6, the Seller should return the money.
If the author presents his EA based on "profit" criterion, then he must regularly demonstrate the real work of his EA on the signals - otherwise we get "unreliable description" and according to clause 7.6 the seller must return the money.
If the author of an EA does not trade his EA himself - but puts it on the market - for what purpose? to find a sucker? -- Then this is a fraud, because in the description of the Expert Advisor the author gives charts and talks/shows what a profitable Expert Advisor he has.
In this case, in the description, the author must clearly indicate that he is not trading the advisor, the advisor has shown good results under certain conditions, I am selling the workpiece, etc. -- If such a description is not made, it turns out to be an "inaccurate description" and according to p.7.6, the Seller should return the money.
If the author presents his EA based on "profit" criterion, then he must regularly demonstrate the real work of his EA on the signals - otherwise we get "unreliable description" and according to clause 7.6 the seller must return the money.
What about trading panels, trawls, and other paid amenities? Figure out how to take money back from the seller ;)
Artyom, notice -- I personally say only one word "advisor".
Everything else (panels, indicators, Expert Advisors, etc.) is easy to check for fraud and/or unfair description.
For example, let's take the description of one well-known indicator:
Ready-made trading system. The indicator does not overdraw or lag. 85% of transactions are profitable. Take Profit is greater than the stop loss from 3 to 15 times!
-- why do you call it a "ready-made trading system"? it's an indicator
-- indicator overdraws, it's proven.
-- indicator lags, you can see it on the rendering
-- why the phrase"85% of trades are profitable"? it's an indicator
-- why the phrase"Take Profit is higher than Stop Loss 3 to 15 times!"? it is an indicator
Typical catchy example of an unscrupulous description of an indicator.