Fairly compare 2 different EAs. How about 1000 different EAs? - page 10
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
Just to clarify - by "IP" I meant Intellectual Property (ownership of the underlying idea + code), not just protection of compiled files. Encryption helps with distribution control, but doesn’t fully address idea theft or replication risks.
Whenever a user is able to load and run a local copy of an executable file, there is a risk of memory dump hacking. My understanding is that it uses the debug process and is rather laborious and time consuming. You could disable backtesting/debugging in the source code, but who would buy that?
Alternatively, you could provide signals in lieu of an EA. Here, the code would have to be entirely reverse engineered/guessed based on nothing but remote signals. Keep in mind that the would-be hacker would have to pay for signals for a lengthy period of time to even attempt this. (This is how I handle my most valuable works).
Quick update...
I've data entered 2700 EA's into my list so far. To put things into perspective, that's not quite halfway yet. And yes, the diamonds-in-the-rough are still popping up here and there.
That seems like a very complicated way to do it. Instead, you can just run the EA's as "employees".
Take your 1,000 EA's and forward test them. The best performers (highest profit, least amount of drawdown) get bumped to live accounts. Then you test another batch while you allocate funds to each EA. Those who perform better get more funds, those who perform worse get less, and those who fail get "fired".
Rinse and repeat. Is it work? Sure. But it can be profitable because who cares if I hire a person or use automation made by a person. You're making this far too complicated just because you've added bots to the mix.
That seems like a very complicated way to do it. Instead, you can just run the EA's as "employees".
Take your 1,000 EA's and forward test them. The best performers (highest profit, least amount of drawdown) get bumped to live accounts. Then you test another batch while you allocate funds to each EA. Those who perform better get more funds, those who perform worse get less, and those who fail get "fired".
Rinse and repeat. Is it work? Sure. But it can be profitable because who cares if I hire a person or use automation made by a person. You're making this far too complicated just because you've added bots to the mix.
I've data entered 2700 EA's into my list so far.
That seems like a very complicated way to do it.
Go ahead and try it your way. I'll be done before you are.
What you couldn't possibly have known is the fact that I type and 10-key like a neuro-chipped monkey on speed.🐵
Quick update...
2900 entries. Broke the halfway point.