MT4 doesn't have long to live - page 37
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
- ..This song is good, start again!
What will the intermediaries between the individual client and the legal entity exchange be called?
They will not. Everything will be automated on the exchange.
Thank goodness there will still be a depository! But while it will probably be possible to register legal access on the side of rooms with servers and sysadmins, I don't think it will be possible on the client side, without a special intermediary - a legal entity with the right to work on the "trading floor".
Which rooms, which sysadmins are related to contracts? What are you talking nonsense? Go and exchange WebMoney from one wallet to another through an electronic exchanger. No sysadmins, no rooms. One party remotely places an order in the price stack, signing it with EDS, the other party can also remotely agree to a transaction on this order, certifying the intentions with his EDS. The contract is made, the exchange takes place, the deal is executed. That is the entire exchange procedure.
The sysadmin is asleep, the currency title deeds are exchanged.
No way. Everything will be automated on the exchange.
I think so, too. The buyer has found the seller.
Intermediaries are not needed. They have occupied another niche - like lending on margin...
And they use MT5 servers.
;)
Somehow, Renat's phrase that it was just a business went unnoticed. Everyone took this as normal, without really knowing what kind of business it was. And this is a monopoly business: they are trying to lump us all under the MT brokers and the business scheme is primitive as hell - spread (commission) and a non-market deal as a stop loss for the DC. To this should be added specially prepared quotes. At the same time it is important to make access to modern mathematics as difficult as possible, which minimizes the costs of pseudo-brokers playing against us.
If we predict the future of trading, it is the fight against monopoly on all components.
1. the source of quotes - independent suppliers, not interested brokers
2. Trading platforms - are built on fundamentally open source software, of which all modern and future mathematics is a part. As an example, I will take Matlab as an example. Matlab itself is written in the m-language in which it is delivered. The user writes in the same m-language, i.e. his results are part of Matlab. Code in m-language is translated to C. A huge library of m-language matmethods is available. Obtaining cotier from independent vendors. A graphical interface from which an m-language program is derived.
3. Making trades directly on the exchanges of the world. Brokers provide leverage, futures, options, but cannot charge commissions for access to the body and cancel trades due to "non-market quotes".
If you look at metaquotes from an anti-monopoly perspective, they have no future. Their sales market is ridiculous (hundreds, maybe a few thousand sales for a few years). Renate's ponzi scheme when comparing methaquotes to APPLE is a clinic, there are billions of merchants out there who are forced to renew all their purchases every six months. That leaves a petty "strong friendship" via DC.
All attempts by the forum to turn the methaquotes towards traders by providing them with modern facilities for building, analysing, modelling the TS - have been unsuccessful. This is of no use to the methaquotes, this is a new market with a small price to sell the product. And so they helped the brokerage companies to drive the patsies to the field of wonders, showed a window for money called MT 4 or 5, making it easier to take money - that is the methaquotas' business. The rest is PR, advertising, promotion for the Pinocchios
1. the source of the quotes is independent suppliers, not interested brokers
I can't understand it from this point. can you explain - is this about the history of quotes or about the price of the deal?
Somehow, Renat's phrase that it was just a business went unnoticed. Everyone took this as normal, without really knowing what kind of business it was. And this is a monopoly business: they are trying to lump us all under the MT brokers and the business scheme is primitive as hell - spread (commission) and a non-market deal as a stop-loss for the brokerage house. To this should be added specially prepared quotes. At the same time it is important to make access to modern mathematics as difficult as possible, which minimizes the costs of pseudo-brokers playing against us.
If we predict the future of trading, it is the fight against monopoly on all components.
1. the source of quotes - independent suppliers, not interested brokers
2. Trading platforms - are built on fundamentally open source software, of which all modern and future mathematics is a part. As an example, I will give Matlab. Matlab itself is written in the m-language in which it is delivered. The user writes in the same m-language, i.e. his results are part of Matlab. Code in m-language is translated to C. A huge library of m-language matmethods is available. Obtaining cotier from independent vendors. A graphical interface from which an m-language program is derived.
3. Making trades directly on the exchanges of the world. Brokers provide leverage, futures, options, but cannot charge commissions for access to the body and cancel trades due to "non-market quotes".
If you look at metaquotes from an anti-monopoly perspective, they have no future. Their sales market is ridiculous (hundreds, maybe a few thousand sales for a few years). Renate's ponzi scheme when comparing methaquotes to APPLE is a clinic, there are billions of merchants out there who are forced to renew all their purchases every six months. That leaves a petty "strong friendship" via DC.
All attempts by the forum to turn the methaquotes towards traders by providing them with modern facilities for building, analysing, modelling the TS - have been unsuccessful. This is of no use to the methaquotes, this is a new market with a small price to sell the product. And so they helped the brokerage companies to drive the patsies to the field of wonders, showed a window for money called MT 4 or 5, making it easier to take money - that is the methaquotas' business. The rest is PR, advertising, promotion for the Pinocchios
But to get back to the subject, I think MT4 will be around for a long time. Firstly the financial world is very conservative; secondly for suckers the MT4 is ideal, and they will definitely live for a very long time. In the third, for many MT4 is a simple but 'angry' trading API, something like a trader's eyes and hands, while the brain is built separately, for example in Matlab. And even after a solid, sophisticated, non-trading MT5 appears in exchanges, I personally think it will be more reasonable to build a bridge between it and Matlab, rather than rewrite all the analytical and managerial part from Matlab to SI++.
You receive quotes, a decision is made on them and deals are made through the tumblers on the exchanges.
So if I'm getting the glass data - why should I be 'independent'?
What does 'independent supplier' mean? If he can't enforce the deal - his role?
To tease out "better" prices?
;)
Somehow, Renat's phrase that it was just a business went unnoticed. Everyone took this as normal, without really knowing what kind of business it was. And this is a monopoly business: they are trying to lump us all under the MT brokers and the business scheme is primitive - spread (commission) and a non-market deal as a stop-loss for the brokerage house. To this should be added specially prepared quotes. At the same time it is important to make access to modern mathematics as difficult as possible, which minimizes the costs, playing against us pseudo-brokers.
If we predict the future of trading, it is the fight against monopoly on all components.
1. the source of quotes - independent suppliers, not interested brokers
2. Trading platforms - are built on fundamentally open source software, of which all modern and future mathematics is a part. As an example, I will give Matlab. Matlab itself is written in the m-language in which it is delivered. The user writes in the same m-language, i.e. his results are part of Matlab. Code in m-language is translated to C. A huge library of m-language matmethods is available. Obtaining cotier from independent vendors. A graphical interface from which an m-language program is derived.
3. Making trades directly on the exchanges of the world. Brokers provide leverage, futures, options, but cannot charge commissions for access to the body and cancel trades due to "non-market quotes".
If you look at the meta-quotes from an anti-monopoly perspective, they have no future. Their sales market is ridiculous (hundreds, maybe a few thousand sales for a few years). Renate's ponzi scheme when comparing methaquotes to APPLE is a clinic, there are billions of merchants out there who are forced to renew all their purchases every six months. That leaves a petty "strong friendship" through the DC.
All attempts of the forum to turn the methaquotes towards traders by providing them with modern facilities for building, analyzing, simulating TS - have failed. This is of no use to the methaquotes, it is a new market with a small price to sell the product. And so they helped the brokerage companies to drive the patsies to the field of wonders, showed a window for money called MT 4 or 5, making it easier to take money - that is the methaquotas' business. The rest is PR, advertising, promotion for the Pinocchios
point 2 makes sense, the rest is feasible as it is.
And it's solved simply by providing a client and server API. Then you can easily plug in any software and write in any language. But the company policy is not to provide. This is a big disadvantage, as well as the absence of work with real ticks (for traders). Otherwise, everything is solvable or insignificant.