Checking the minimum stop in EAs published in the marketplace. - page 7

[Alexander Bereznyak]

A little more and they will demand profitability not only on history

[Andrey F. Zelinsky]

Alexander Bereznyak:
If you are ready, they will demand profitability not only on history.

For Expert Advisors - this rule should have been introduced from the beginning - it was not introduced from the beginning, there are cheaters and rogues in the market - thousands of Expert Advisors are on sale, but the profit from them is zero.

It is very easy to check the Market sellers for fraud - here is the formula:

-- If an EA is sold and the performance of the EA is not displayed on a real account, the seller is cheating and the EA should be withdrawn from sale.

The administration is making a foolproof check -- it seems to me that this is a whitewash -- we should check the products for what they are and what they should be used for.

If you are selling an EA, its performance should be demonstrated on a real account, that's the best and only proper check of the product.

[Alexander Bereznyak]

Andrey F. Zelinsky:

the administration's introduction of stopgap and foolproofing checks is, to me, a point-scoring exercise - you have to check products for what they are and what they are supposed to do.

i agree, and i also like the requirement to check for error 134, if you catch this error on a real account, consider it lost

[Andrey F. Zelinsky]

Alexander Bereznyak:
I agree, and I also like the requirement to check for error 134, if you catch this error on a real account, consider it lost

I also like the requirement to check the sufficiency of funds - otherwise the entire log is full of cancelled orders.

[Alexander Bereznyak]

Andrey F. Zelinsky:
It's a very good requirement from their side - a real trading advisor should check the adequacy of funds - otherwise the entire log will be full of order cancellations.

It's no big deal, it doesn't lead to a loss

[Lilita Bogachkova]

Andrey F. Zelinsky:

For Expert Advisors - this rule should have been introduced from the beginning - it was not introduced from the beginning, there are cheaters and rogues in the market - thousands of Expert Advisors are on sale, but the profit from them is zero.

It is very easy to check the Market sellers for fraud - here is the formula:

-- If an EA is sold and the performance of the EA is not displayed on a real account, the seller is a fraud, and the EA should be withdrawn from sale.

I disagree. If I work with this broker, I will not search for a broker, that is equal to the first one in terms of service quality, but, in addition, allows signals.

I should see how long the EA has been updated in the Market and see if it works with profit after three, four or more months after the update. h ttps://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/586

[Andrey F. Zelinsky]

Alexander Bereznyak:
it's not a big deal, it doesn't lead to a drain.

of course it doesn't lead to a loss - because in most cases, when this error occurs, the account is already drained.

[Alexander Bereznyak]

Lack of checking for correct stops can also clog up the logs

[Andrey F. Zelinsky]

lilita bogachkova:

I disagree. There are brokers that forbid signals and if I work with this broker and everything else suits me, I will not look for a broker that matches the level of service of the first one but allows signals on top of that...

If your EA is "tuned" to a particular broker - then this is one example of cheating - in this case, your EA does not belong to the Market.

[Andrey F. Zelinsky]

Alexander Bereznyak:
Lack of checking for correct stops may also clog the logs

It is not about the administration's requirements for market products - it is about the products and their authors.

If the Expert Advisor is written correctly with all the checks that should be made in the process of trading - then there will be no claims to such an Expert Advisor.

As far as I know, the Market moderators are reasonable and adequate people.