An imbalance of subscribers among signal providers - page 11
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
There are all sorts of duplicators in the market, and they are not difficult to write, you can order them from freelancers.
make a demo, sign it to a signal, copy trades from it to a real one... just to be able to filter out obvious mistakes or change the volume. The difference between the signal Provider and the real one. This is while the signal provider and MQ do not care what the subscriber does. Subscription price is fixed.
it is technically possible to send the signal to the Subscriber's terminal and let him decide instead of executing on the server. But it hinders the kitchens and does not allow to aggregate the volumes - therefore it is not done. I don't see any other reasons
there is, but it's such an ugly way :-(
To start a demo, sign it to a signal, copy trades from it to a real one...just to be able to filter out a clear foul or change the volume. There are a lot of pitfalls, at least in the form of delays and gone prices. The signal provider and MQ do not care what the subscriber does. The subscription price is fixed.
Technically it is possible to send the signal to the subscriber's terminal and let him decide instead of executing it on the server. But this is a hindrance for the kitchens and does not allow them to aggregate the volumes - so it is not done. I don't see other reasons.
there is, but it's such an ugly way :-(
To start a demo, sign it to a signal, copy trades from it to a real one...just to be able to filter out a clear foul or change the volume. There are a lot of pitfalls, at least in the form of delays and gone prices. The signal provider and MQ do not care what the subscriber does. The subscription price is fixed.
Technically it is possible to send the signal to the subscriber's terminal and let him decide instead of executing it on the server. But this is a hindrance for the kitchens and does not allow them to aggregate the volumes - so it is not done. I do not see any other reasons
is not suitable only for HFT )
If the benchmark accounts haven't drained, then the problem is in the trader's terminal. I can also manually interfere with signal trading and write nonsense.
The "ranking" according to some technical characteristics and the position of the signal in the mql5.com output are different things, to put it mildly. And if some author "want his own, correct" ranking, then nothing prevents him from doing it. Well, maybe lack of site API.
(Technological nuances) solved in principle, as elsewhere (all sorts of facebook/twitter/yandex) - registered application id, and this registered id given more complete statistics. And what the author can extract from this stats is his own business and the business of his audience.
Once again, I would like to stress that any person deriving a rating from existing stats will not be able to satisfy the audience. There will be conflicts - "my signal is cool and old, why isn't it there / Vs my signal though young but cooler than the old guys".
The only claim you can theoretically make against MQ is that the top` of signals on the site remains unchanged for a long time. This is indeed a conflict of interest. Well I have not seen any justification :-)
There is more or less rotation in the market and fresh products have a chance to reach the top and stay there. And vice versa, a product from the top can obviously fly down. More or less, although there are some flaws in the process. Naturally, such a rotation algorithm is a terrible copywrite of MQ. Because it makes money and engages the audience. If such a thing is not yet seen in the signals, it is more likely from the "inertia" of the signals themselves, they have an indicative payback period of 3-4 months in the direction of MQ.
I will continue (#2)
The only claim you can theoretically make against MQ is that the top` of signals on the site remains unchanged for a long time. This is indeed a conflict of interest. Well I haven't seen any justification :-)
There is a situation where a trader put his signal a year or two ago, persistently making percentages, all this can be seen in statistics, earning subscribers by his labor and reputation gradually climbing to the top ... and there is another signal - it is 2 months old, he has 0 followers, respectively, and reputation - 0 - but the author of this signal shouts everywhere and everywhere that "the rating is wrong!!! I am young but not at the top!!! Give way to the young and let's level the playing field!!!" You mean this "conflict of interest"? So let the man go - no less the way of any of the top - and then see the result.
Yep, advocates
"It's really a conflict of interest." - interesting expression) and how does this conflict manifest itself? The invariability of the top and the words about "mine is young but cooler" - all this is child's tale of nothing ... There is a situation where a trader put his signal a year or two ago, persistently making percentages, it all can be seen in statistics, earn subscribers through his work and reputation, gradually getting out into the top ... and there is another signal - it is 2 months, it has 0 followers, respectively, and reputation - 0 - but the author of this signal cries everywhere and everywhere that "the rating, they say wrong!!! I am young but not at the top!!! Make way for the young and let's level the playing field!!!" You mean this "conflict of interest"? So let a man pass - no less than the way of any of the top - and then see the result (which I'm sure he will be pleasantly surprised) - not "everything is unfair and let's change everything for me" ... all - on equal footing ... everyone - has an equal chance to become "super-mega-duper top #1 of all time" - trade big time, not trade for statistics - and you'll be happy!!!))
If you don't have anything to say about it, you'd better keep quiet than to trash-talk about it for a few pages of trash-talk :-) There cannot be anything else. Any mysterious coefficient that depends only on trade can be (and will be) emulated for the sake of being in the top of the list. MQ's interest is to increase the number of subscribers, the vendor's interest is to draw attention to itself, i.e. to be higher in the ranking. If the rotation is too slow (the TOP is the same and ever-memorable Taras takes over everything), the interests of new suppliers are infringed. So MQ tries to keep balance on signal promotion in "ranking" (in fact, search/visual), but many do not like slowness and start a fuss. By the way, no one has shown adequate evidence of "consistency of the TOP", but everyone vied with each other to change the ranking.
And again - if you do not like the rating (the order in which signals are issued to the site or their scores), make your own. Well all the possibilities are there - why do you think that MQ should do it for you?