New Market - how do we sell new EAs now? - page 5
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
In the Russian Federation, LinkedIn is blocked by Roskomnadzor for violating Federal Law No 242-FZ of 21.07.2014 "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation to Clarify the Processing of Personal Data in Information and Telecommunication Networks". And it is accordingly blocked by Russian providers.
In the Russian Federation, LinkedIn is blocked by Roskomnadzor for violating Federal Law No 242-FZ of 21.07.2014 "On Amending Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation to Clarify the Processing of Personal Data in Information and Telecommunication Networks". And it is accordingly blocked by Russian providers.
No problem.
It's interesting - people complain that "the market has become bad" because "there is no moderation now" and the rating is "inadequate". Well, make your own rating! I am absolutely sure that in six months a rating that is regularly updated and "adequate" will be very popular and people will be guided by it.
The entire problem here is that the goal of most EA authors is not to solve the buyer's problem by offering an EA with which one can earn money, or even write an EA that earns money, but to solve their own problems - "to sheep" who are willing to pay money for nothing. Almost all of them are variations on long-known topics.
The changes in the Market are very simple - Admins have understood that they spend too much effort on reviewing and moderating arriving fakes, while the demand for them is very low - apparently so low that there is no sense in moderation - there is nothing to pay someone who will check Expert Advisors.
When I look at the Market, it reminds me of the situation with shareware software of the late 90s. And it seems to me that it has the same ending.
By the way, the only one who seems to be trying to change the situation is Peter Konov, trying to "create new traders" who would trade manually (using his visual library). I'm not sure he'll succeed, but at least he's trying. Otherwise... 99% of Expert Advisor authors are purely writers of "tester grails" that start to fail practically immediately even when being installed on a demo program (not to mention the real one).
I guess I'll say it again.
"This is a hot topic.
I will once again make my suggestion that I already voiced in another thread.
No signal, no councillor.
If there is no operation monitoring of the Expert Advisor for a month, we should remove it from the storefront. It will be removed until there is a signal that proves its work. Moreover, if monitoring is opened and closed, the amount of new signals is limited to, say, three. Further, an EA without a signal is IMMEDIATELY deleted from the Market.
Clearly, this will require human resources. I, for example, am willing to clear the market of more and more junk for no compensation.
In my opinion, if the developer does not monitor the EA's operation on a real account (even on a cent account), then the EA is trash and must be removed as unnecessary trash!
In my opinion - this is the only sensible approach to forming a base not of trash, but of really working tools.
If the creator does not use his child, then the child is rubbish. The program was created only for sale and nothing more. This is obvious.
I'm sure there will be more than enough volunteers to help clear the market in the way I've described.
Perhaps I'll say it again.
"This is a hot topic.
I will repeat the suggestion I made in another topic.
No signal, no councillor.
If there is no EA monitoring within a month, we should remove the EA from the storefront. It will be removed until there is a signal that proves its work. Moreover, if monitoring is opened and closed, the amount of new signals is limited to, say, three. Further, an EA without a signal is IMMEDIATELY deleted from the Market.
Clearly, this will require human resources. I, for example, am willing to clear the market from the more and more junk for no compensation.
In my opinion, if the developer does not monitor the EA's operation on a real account (even on a cent account), then the EA is trash and must be removed as unnecessary trash!
In my opinion - this is the only sensible approach to forming a base of not junk, but really working tools.
If the creator does not use his child, then the child is rubbish. The program was created only for sale and nothing more. It's obvious.
I'm sure there will be more than enough volunteers to help clear the market in the way I've described.
What about long-term Expert Advisors? There can be 2-3 trades per month, or even none. These signals quickly become archived.
No signal, no advisor.
If there is no monitoring of the EA within a month, the EA should be removed from the storefront. Until there is a signal that demonstrates its work. Moreover, if monitoring is opened and closed, the amount of new signals is limited to, say, three. Further, an EA without a signal is FORCEDLY removed from the Market.
Yes, a good suggestion in my opinion.
Moreover, even without "opening and closing of monitoring" - the hell with it, let it open and close. The rule is simple - an EA should be placed in the Market only when there is a signal (even a demo) with at least one month's history. This will filter out freeloaders who just took the EA from Kodobase and placed it in the Market. Creating a monthly monitoring requires some additional effort and regular monitoring. And this, in my opinion, is already enough to reduce the number of fakes in the Market by at least half.
What about long-term EAs? Where there may be 2-3 trades per month, or even none at all. Such signals are very quickly archived.
An option is to require a signal with at least a dozen trades or a month of work.
A variant - to require a signal with at least a dozen trades or a month of work.
The thing is that to get such a number of trades, the signal should have existed for at least half a year. But the signal will not last that long, as far as I know, if there are no trades for a month, the signal goes into archive automatically.
The thing is that to get such a number of trades, the signal should have existed for at least half a year. But the signal will not last that long. As far as I know, if there are no trades in a month the signal is archived automatically.
There are few Expert Advisors of this kind. I think the author should contact the administration and explain the situation. There are exceptions to any rule.
I am not sure that this signal is archived. If memory serves me correctly (I had one such signal), it simply becomes invisible for copying (like those with high drawdown), and after a trade it appears again in the rating. I might be confusing something, but still, somehow. And if that's not the case, it makes perfect sense to do it this way. I wrote that...))Well, there aren't many advisors like that. I think the author should contact the administration here and explain the situation. There are exceptions to every rule.
And I'm not sure that such a signal goes into the archive. If memory serves me correctly (I had one such signal), it simply becomes invisible for copying (like those with high drawdown), and after a trade it appears again in the rating. I might be confusing something, but still, somehow. And if that's not the case, then it makes perfect sense to do it this way. I wrote that...))Perhaps the rules are different now. I haven't created signals for a long time now.