Fairly compare 2 different EAs. How about 1000 different EAs? - page 6
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
The most we can do is share ideas and suggestions in the hope that they may be taken into consideration.
That’s exactly what I was trying to do - not shift blame, but draw attention and open a window for reflection.
Questions like “Do they know?”... “Is this on their radar?”... and alike - are part of constructive dialogue when raised respectfully.
The issue, dear Oleksandr, is that once the topic has been presented (along with ideas, suggestions, and possible solutions), there is little value in continuing to go around in circles with comments like “Will they do something soon? Do they even care?”. Remarks like these no longer contribute to the discussion. Instead, they shift it into a less constructive and more emotional space, which can come across as a bit of a tantrum (said with all due respect).
Moreover, this approach creates unnecessary pressure and gives fuel to the most critical readers, who are always quick to jump on anything negative.
I insist, the proposal was clearly laid out five days ago. I do not believe there is much more to add, unless the goal is simply to ask again “Why is no one listening to me?”, which honestly does not help.
check that the EA is not cheating, on purpose by the author or by mistake.
I believe this is the most frequent case .
Accidental overfits , everywhere , with every possible method , even manually.
Touché, that is precisely the point. It's important to remember that not everything comes from bad intentions, there are often factors that are simply beyond our control.
That said, and as I mentioned before, in my opinion the final responsibility always lies with the end user. It is the user who must assess whether or not there was overfitting (intentional or not), and decide whether to buy a product, regardless of its quality.
Expecting MQ to take on that responsibility would open the door to unreasonable situations. For example, if a user blows their account due to misuse (like overleveraging), they could then claim that MQ scammed them. In that case, the one blamed would no longer be the developer (who is actually responsible for the product), but the intermediary. And that, as I believe anyone can understand, would be both unfair and completely unworkable.
The issue, dear Oleksandr, is that once the topic has been presented (along with ideas, suggestions, and possible solutions), there is little value in continuing to go around in circles with comments like “Will they do something soon? Do they even care?”. Remarks like these no longer contribute to the discussion. Instead, they shift it into a less constructive and more emotional space, which can come across as a bit of a tantrum (said with all due respect).
Moreover, this approach creates unnecessary pressure and gives fuel to the most critical readers, who are always quick to jump on anything negative.
I insist, the proposal was clearly laid out five days ago. I do not believe there is much more to add, unless the goal is simply to ask again “Why is no one listening to me?”, which honestly does not help.
Fair enough, Miguel. I see the line you’re drawing - if MQ stepped in too far, they’d risk a MiFID-style regulatory mess (actively discussed in other threads today).
That alone explains the hands-off stance - and it’s a valid one. Your reply clarified that - thanks.
Still, introducing a formal way to fairly compare EAs - through EA score/ranking or other objective quality metrics - feels long overdue and well within MQ reach.
Fair enough, Miguel. I see the line you’re drawing - if MQ stepped in too far, they’d risk a MiFID-style regulatory mess (actively discussed in other threads today).
That alone explains the hands-off stance - and it’s a valid one. Your reply clarified that - thanks.
Still, introducing a formal way to fairly compare EAs - through EA score/ranking or other objective quality metrics - feels long overdue and well within MQ reach.
there would be substantial costs too that would offset the commision surpius (if any)
Imagine back in 2016 one EA got rejected because there was a typo in the inputs tab , another one was advised to reduce the inputs because nobody would buy it (and nobody bought it indeed), and i vividly recall , when the "pattern father" came hunting down scanners , youtube , linked in , facebook ,twitter just decimated pages with no warning , MQ advised on what to do with the name .
The best way unironically would be to send the source code and the compilation to happen+checked on the server , with some sort of gpt , and they would have to discard the source code once compiled , like they do with current ex files
Fair enough, Miguel. I see the line you’re drawing - if MQ stepped in too far, they’d risk a MiFID-style regulatory mess (actively discussed in other threads today).
That alone explains the hands-off stance - and it’s a valid one. Your reply clarified that - thanks.
Still, introducing a formal way to fairly compare EAs - through EA score/ranking or other objective quality metrics - feels long overdue and well within MQ reach.
Very interesting. I had no idea that MiFID was extended to derivatives by MiFID II in 2018 (Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) Definition).
Example.
Any scam should be technically proven. If the user do not have any technical proof or do not care about it so - he/user is the scammer.
It is the rules of trolling.
----------------
So, proof, proof and one more proof.
To the service desk of course.
----------------
We (the forum users together with me and other forum moderators) do not moderate the Market. We can make just the proposal for possible improvements.
I agree that bold statements need bold proofs. I will search on my old disks if I can find the files of my analysis. But if I have to risk the ban on decision from metaquote, I want to put the proof in the light of sun. I don't have to tell the name of the EA or show its input params or something, I just want to show the methodology of how it behaves(just showing the trades on chart and nothing more and let judge the people of this forum if using logic this is a scam or not(and we already know the answer as these are obvious manipulation because there are no other way explain that). Then, if we ALL agree that this is a methodological scam, I can send all other proof to MQ. I don't want to send all this info to MQ first as there is a big conflict of interest between them and me in this case. I am not a buyer of that EA, I don't need any refund or something, because I did my research BEFORE. But If I am right and the MQ has big interest to hide this story because that EA provides a discrete amount of money every month to them, I don't want just to disappear and get banned. MQ approaches are sometimes opaque and you can't complain to anybody, they do things on purely their discretion, so no real justice here.
So, I am asking you all, if I just provide charts with trades, nothing more (no EA name or other things related to the product name), and explain the rationale behind why I am stating this is a scam, can this be considered just a generic technical discussion and because of that allowed here in the forum ?
Can I bring the proof, so you can tell me if this is a scam or not? Please answer my question and let me know what you think.
I am very accurate and detailed oriented person and I am not here to make generic talks as most of discussion here(I think here arose arguments that looks like correct at the first sight, but with proper analysis they are wrong) , I have a lot to bring to lot of points in this thread, but I need to do that step by step, one topic at time, with scientific method. The methodological scams are very important to me.
Thank you!!
There is a level of protection for Buyers in the EA Market. For example, here is one sample out of over 1000 Market EA's in my list to date (which shall remain nameless here):
10/01/2021
28
n/a
10 000 USD
So, we have an EA that's been in the Market for about 4 years, 28 Reviews were posted, all 28 Reviews were flagged resulting in zero total review stars, and its price is 10,000 USD.
I should note that this EA was far from top of Market page at the time of this post.
No real problem here, assuming that common sense is used by Buyers.
Furthermore, MQ should not disclose its Market ranking algorithm. Would Google do this? How about YouTube? Strategic ambiguity prevents gaming of the system. This is why I'm merely collecting public information for analysis instead of nagging MQ with "ideas." Frankly, I've already confessed elsewhere that my online marketing skills could fit on the head of a pin.
Can I bring the proof, so you can tell me if this is a scam or not? Please answer my question and let me know what you think.
It should not be discussed on the forum, because -
It is better to inform the service desk (in case you have some proofs or you are thinking that you have it).
Because the service desk is moderating the Market.
But if I have to risk the ban on decision from metaquote, I want to put the proof in the light of sun.
Banning is not a big problem ... I remember - I was banned once for one week (yes, it is true).
And it is impossible to discuss any proofs in technical/concrete way here on the forum because it is out of the forum rules and regulations.
----------------
By the way, I use the word "scam" with the "forex scam" meaning (not about "criminal scam") - so please avoid any misunderstanding for example.