Proposal for Improving MQL5 Market Transparency - A Mandatory Trading Account for Expert Advisor Publishers –
Many sellers do that already, but they reset this live/demo account after each large drawdown (by deleting it and creating a new one).
So, even a connected trading account does not guarantee trustworthy results.
Many sellers do that already, but they reset this live/demo account after each large drawdown (by deleting it and creating a new one).
So, even a connected trading account does not guarantee trustworthy results.
So as the seller-controlled account can be reset or replaced after a major drawdown, making the track record unreliable, there is a better solution, especially since MQL5 already operates its own infrastructure.
What if MQL5 itself hosted and operated a demo account for every Expert Advisor published in the Market?
The seller would only need to provide a few basic parameters required to run the EA:
-
Initial deposit.
-
Account leverage.
-
Lot sizing method: fixed lots or dynamically changing lots.
-
Any other essential account or execution settings required by the EA.
MQL5 would then run the purchased Market version .ex5 on its own servers or it could even charge developers a fee and host the EA'a on cloud computing (something like MetaTrader 5 Strategy Tester) depending the resourses the EA consumes. (eg more fees for bad coded ea's)
A potential buyer could then compare the EA's Strategy Tester results against an independently operated demo account running the actual Market version.
Of course, demo execution would not fully represent real trading conditions, but it would provide something much more valuable than another seller-controlled performance account:
an independent and continuous record of how the EA actually behaves.
So as the seller-controlled account can be reset or replaced after a major drawdown, making the track record unreliable, there is a better solution, especially since MQL5 already operates its own infrastructure.
What if MQL5 itself hosted and operated a demo account for every Expert Advisor published in the Market?
The seller would only need to provide a few basic parameters required to run the EA:
-
Initial deposit.
-
Account leverage.
-
Lot sizing method: fixed lots or dynamically changing lots.
-
Any other essential account or execution settings required by the EA.
MQL5 would then run the purchased Market version .ex5 on its own servers or it could even charge developers a fee and host the EA'a on cloud computing (something like MetaTrader 5 Strategy Tester) depending the resourses the EA consumes. (eg more fees for bad coded ea's)
A potential buyer could then compare the EA's Strategy Tester results against an independently operated demo account running the actual Market version.
Of course, demo execution would not fully represent real trading conditions, but it would provide something much more valuable than another seller-controlled performance account:
an independent and continuous record of how the EA actually behaves.
That's an interesting idea, but I don't see it becoming a reality.
Why you don't see it?
MQL5 could introduce it as an optional paid service for developers who want to provide independently verified performance records for their products.
This would also create a new revenue stream for MQL5, while giving serious developers a way to differentiate their products from thousands of others relying exclusively on backtests .
If an EA can realistically generate even $10,000–$20,000 annually on $100,000 of capital, using standard retail leverage of 1:30, developers might find it more attractive to offer their products through annual rentals rather than one-time purchases.
An independently verified performance record would give potential customers a much stronger reason to pay for an annual rental, while attracting institutional investors.
In other words, MQL5 could potentially create an entire new ecosystem around verified algorithmic trading products, rather than simply being a marketplace for downloadable EAs.
The first proposal, to putting the wolf in guard of the sheep, is nonsense, there’s nothing to discuss there, as it’s far too easy to fool people using a signal. The second proposal is fine, but who knows if MetaQuotes would even be willing to implement such a thing, even if it were a paid service, say $50 a month, that would be acceptable. However, there are several complications: many EAs under go frequent re-optimization, and there is no way to prohibit this. Many sellers already have a loyal base of buyers who accept, or even ask, for re-optimization and adjustments to settings. The only scenario where a seller cannot manipulate the outcome is during a backtest; they cannot interfere with your actions or alter your settings while you are running one. But when it comes to their own signal, they are free to adjust settings, make changes, or intervene as they see fit, and there is no way to stop them. Ultimately, it is in the buyer's best interest to learn how to properly evaluate an EA, if they fail to do so, they will pay the price, because ignorance always comes at a cost.
Therefore, the only way a seller cannot control or manipulate a potential buyer is through backtesting. There are no trial versions for EAs, and it’s clear why MetaQuotes doesn’t offer them, but they have provided the option to rent out these programs on a monthly basis, for the price of two burgers.
If MetaQuotes doesn't want to do it, you can do it yourself. After all, all you need is a website and an MT5 terminal. I don't know how many sellers would agree to have an EA running on a VPS without the ability to intervene, but, for me, am in, and I’m even willing to pay for an independent audit.
Technically, I agree. It could be built a website, MT5 terminals and VPS infrastructure.
But the biggest challenge is not building the platform. It's attracting developers and, more importantly, reaching potential buyers.
I cannot compare the traffic, visibility and established user base of my own website with those of MQL5.
The real value of this idea would come from having the verification system integrated directly into the marketplace, where buyers are already looking for EAs.
Without that distribution, even a very good independent verification service would struggle to gain adoption.
Technically, I agree. It could be built a website, MT5 terminals and VPS infrastructure.
But the biggest challenge is not building the platform. It's attracting developers and, more importantly, reaching potential buyers.
I cannot compare the traffic, visibility and established user base of my own website with those of MQL5.
The real value of this idea would come from having the verification system integrated directly into the marketplace, where buyers are already looking for EAs.
Without that distribution, even a very good independent verification service would struggle to gain adoption.
That is precisely what I’m saying, we have to work with what we’ve got. MetaQuotes has a reputation and, of course, the technical capabilities, for anyone else, reaching a high level of audience reach and credibility would be much more difficult. As for what we do have: there’s the MT5 tester, which, unlike the one in MT4, is highly efficient, as well as the option to rent an EA, for a set period at a reasonable price, or to request such arrangement from the seller.
However, MetaQuotes could do something even better, if they wished, they could eliminate the option to purchase products, moving instead to a monthly rental model. This would resolve any issues, if an EA, stops being profitable, the client can simply rent a different one. They could switch to any EA they choose at any time, rather than being tied for life to a purchased product, which, quite obviously, is not going to remain profitable for the next 3000 years. This approach would be far more logical, then again, who knows what MetaQuotes’ intentions are, or the reasoning behind their decision to offer the option of buying a product for eternity.
Why they didn't also include the option to buy a signal subscription for a million years, I have no idea.
the MT5 tester
the MT5 tester.... Α backtest cannot be trusted.
I can hard-code exact prices, timestamps and specific symbols, whether Forex pairs or stocks, and make the EA execute trades at precisely those prices and times. Controlled testing,
This allows to reproduce specific market scenarios and test exactly how an EA behaves under controlled conditions. Overfitting.
Controlled testing lead to overfitting.
This is exactly what I believe is missing from the MQL5 Market: something similar to Myfxbook, but with an important difference.
An independently hosted demo account, running the actual Market version of the EA, with no possibility for the developer to modify the account, interfere with its trading history or reset it after a drawdown.
Even if the user changes the EA's parameters, the demo should continue running against future, previously unknown market prices, maintaining a continuous and independently verifiable record.
In my opinion, this is the only meaningful way to verify whether an EA's claimed behaviour holds up beyond its backtest.
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
Currently, the MQL5 Market contains approximately 700 pages of Expert Advisors, compared to around 50 pages of Signals.
My proposal is to introduce a mandatory requirement for every Expert Advisor published in the Market: the developer must provide a verified LIVE or DEMO trading account running the published EA.
The purpose is not to guarantee profitability or impose minimum performance requirements. It is to introduce transparency and verifiability.
A potential buyer would be able to:
Download or run the EA in the Strategy Tester using the available historical data.
Access the developer's verified live trading account.
Compare the historical backtest with actual live trading activity.
Evaluate whether the EA match the backtest.
This would allow buyers to assess something that is currently difficult to verify: whether the EA behaves in real trading as its developer claims it does.
I believe this would benefit everyone:
Buyers: More information before making a purchasing decision.
Honest developers: An opportunity to distinguish themselves through verifiable evidence rather than marketing claims.
MQL5: Greater credibility, trust and long-term value for its Market.
The objective is simple: move the MQL5 Market one step closer to an evidence-based marketplace, where a product is evaluated not only by what it promises in a backtest, but also by what it actually does in a live account.
I believe this could be one of the most meaningful improvements to the credibility of the MQL5 Market.