Discussion of article "Payments and payment methods"

[MetaQuotes]

New article Payments and payment methods is published:

MQL5.community built-in services offer great opportunities both to MQL5 developers and ordinary traders with no programming skills. But all these features can't be implemented without in-house secure payment system, that provides a convenient basis for settlements between buyers and sellers. In this article we will show how the MQL5.community payment system works.

Author: MetaQuotes

[Franco]

Hey,

The paypal deposit system is not working, I get a 404 error page after being redirected from paypal to mql5.com. 

[[Deleted]]

Thanks for your message. It was fixed.

Please try again.

[---]

Sometimes it is necessary to perform a transfer from one user to another (by login) on the MQL5 website.

Is it realistic to add such functionality?

[михаил потапыч]

for 20 per cent realistically )

♪ they'll start bypassing the commission ♪

[Renat Fatkhullin]

sergeev:

Is it realistic to add such functionality ?

Unfortunately, no. It would destroy the work of the services.

[---]

Renat:
Unfortunately, no. It would destroy the work of the services.

The 20% commission will also be bypassed through the forum, as long as there is no 20% commission in the "work" section.

The buyer will create a "targeted" job for the seller like "personalised product tweaks".

---

In the second my opinion, that 20% commission is outright robbery. :) It would be acceptable if the developers were with you - with intermediaries - in the share. But they are not. With such a commission the service will breathe badly. And it will be constantly bypassed by other ways. The service will turn into a showcase of free adverts, the deals on which will be made outside it.

How did you calculate it? Based on expected prices of goods? Or such commissions are common practice in online shops ?

20% for 5-10$ in principle tolerable, but at a price of 1000$....

[Renat Fatkhullin]

sergeev:
Secondly, my opinion is that 20% commission is outright robbery. :) It would be acceptable if the developers were with you - with intermediaries - in the share. But they are not. With such a commission the service will breathe badly. And it will be constantly bypassed by other ways. The service will turn into a showcase

You forget that it is we who provide access to a huge audience. We provide instant access to the Market, Works, MQL5 Cloud Network, Signals (soon to be launched) to all users.

Compare:

• a developer is one-to-one with his website, where the traffic is 10 people per day.
  
• products and services of the developer on the MQL5.com website and in each of the hundreds of thousands of terminals.

Do you understand the difference? It is for access to the audience that the commission is paid.

The 20% commission can also be bypassed through the forum, as long as there is no 20% commission in the "work" section.

The buyer will create a "targeted" task for the seller like "personalisation of the product".

In the Work section the commission is zero for now, but will appear by the end of the year.

[Yedelkin]

A view from the outside (I am not going to fulfil orders myself): Renat writes that MQ provides some kind of audience access service; Sergeyev writes that MQ takes no part in the processing of orders and in the formation of the cost of work. Both are right.

Therefore, the conclusion is simple: since the service is provided to all executing programmers in the same volume, charging them different prices "for the same thing" will be perceived very negatively. One of the ways out of such situations is a fixed fee for conducting a transaction through the service.

It is clear that in this case MQ is a monopolist. But I would never give away 20%, 15% or even 10%. Our people are talented and will always find ways not to overpay. In other words, if the commission is considered unfair, there will be practically no income from it. There is even some economic law on this subject in relation to taxes.

[Renat Fatkhullin]

Yedelkin:

A view from the outside (I am not going to fulfil orders myself): Renat writes that MQ provides some kind of audience access service; Sergeyev writes that MQ takes no part in the processing of orders and in the formation of the cost of work. Both are right.

You are wrong.

The first statement about audience access is correct, but the second is fundamentally wrong. Access to the audience, our advertising of developer services, renting our space, providing payment environment, participation in arbitration removes any questions about our participation in the cost of third-party developers' services.

You need to understand such basic things, otherwise it is not business, but attempts to snatch crumbs with loss of potential. Marketing is much more complicated and important than the product itself. The one who provides this marketing with distribution has the most direct share in the product.

Look at the Apple AppStore - it gives third-party developers access to a wide audience of customers, organises the whole payment part and allows them to make money. Android, on the other hand, with its openness and free nature, leaves virtually no chance for third-party developers to make money. People are surprised to realise that the Android ecosystem has no real money in software at all (no need to argue, I'm talking about real money, not theoretical) and they have to work for free for the benefit of Google.

Our approach is to give third-party developers an opportunity to earn real money at MQL5.community

[Yedelkin]

Renat:

You're wrong.

I won't argue, that's not why I responded. The volume of MQ's work is enormous, for this we always have respect and respect. I just want to convey the idea that such activities as "access to audience, our advertising of developers' services, rent of our space, provision of payment environment, participation in arbitration" look like some kind of general compensated service in the eyes of an ordinary common man/non_marketer. A programmer will consider that he writes the programme himself (isn't it so?) and sells it, and the commission for using the paid service is some "external expenses" for him. The reasonableness of the size of this commission will determine whether the programmer will use the service or will look for workarounds, because it is the programmer who will decide whether he should include the MQ commission into the price of his product (and whether he will not lose some number of orders because of it).

...It is clear, for example, that the fee for renting premises can be calculated on the basis of the cost of 1 sq.m. per year, or on the basis of the annual turnover of the tenant. But I have only once in my life met a lease agreement of the second type, and that was in a dispute that the tenant deliberately underestimated his turnover.

Let me add. In ordinary shops also take a commission from the turnover as a percentage. But there the approach is simpler: the entire volume of goods of the seller and their prices are strictly controlled by the administration of the shop. But even in this situation: if I don't like the shop's markups, I will stand at its porch and sell strawberries without commission until they draw up a protocol on illegal entrepreneurial activity.