Download MetaTrader 5

There is some kind of unfairness in the payment system in MQL market

To add comments, please log in or register
Trade with MetaTarder 5. Download it right now!
Jan Tarnogrocki
6335
Jan Tarnogrocki 2015.04.28 21:48 
Hello MQL,
Hello Buyers,
Hello Sellers,
 

There is some kind of unfairness in the payment system in MQL market. Everyone pays the same for a product disregarded how much he benefits from it.

From a Buyers view:

Buyer A has an account loaded with 5000 USD. He buys an EA for 500 USD. He makes a profit of 20%. Related to his account that is 1000 USD. He is fine in the end as he made a net profit of 500 US.

Buyer B has an account loaded with 1000 USD. He buys the same EA for the same price of 500 USD. He makes the same profit of 20%. Related to his account that is only 200 USD. He is not fine at all in the end as he made a net loss of -300 US.

From a Sellers view:

The Seller would have either one satisfied and happy customer and one that is not satisfied at all. Or he would have that one happy customer and no second one because the second one did not buy due to his small account. Both cases are not optimal. In the first there is a customer that has a bad experience and may make bad mouth propaganda about it. In the second case there is a potential customer that did not buy.

From MQL view:

Same as from a Sellers view as MQLs profit is dependent from the Sellers profit. And MQLs success depends from the Sellers success and from the buyers Success.

My suggestion to solve that problem of imbalance between what you pay and what you get:
The price for the EA must be related to the traded account size. Buyer B has only 20% of the account size from Buyer A. If Buyer B would only pay 20% from the price of 500 USD he would have to pay 100 USD. That would lead to a net profit of 100 USD for Buyer B. Now Buyer A and Buyer B would have made the same profit in terms of percentage: 10%. That would be fair.

I am writing that because I want to offer a trial version of my EA for 10 USD rent per month for accounts smaller than 100 USD.  I have written that EA to trade with really small accounts including a sound risk management. The EA is worth to pay a lot more as the risk management is working with big accounts, too of course. That means big profits for big accounts. And that means I cannot offer the EA to everyone for the same price. My question to offer the EA as a trial version and as a full version was denied by the service desk because no limitations about balance are allowed.

That is a restriction that should be reconsidered as it denies a lot of trading potential. For Buyers, Sellers and MQL.

Kind regards,

JT.

Stuart Browne
5793
Stuart Browne 2015.04.29 00:31  
trade_it:


Buyer A has an account loaded with 5000 USD. He buys an EA for 500 USD. He makes a profit of 20%. Related to his account that is 1000 USD. He is fine in the end as he made a net profit of 500 US.

Buyer B has an account loaded with 1000 USD. He buys the same EA for the same price of 500 USD. He makes the same profit of 20%. Related to his account that is only 200 USD. He is not fine at all in the end as he made a net loss of -300 US.

Hi JT

Unfortunately you forgot Buyer C. They would make up the majority of the buyers:

Buyer C has an account with 5000 USD. He wants to buy products cheaply so he withdraws most of his money from his account before purchase, gets an EA super super cheap, then transfers his money back in.


How would you protect the seller from this behavior? Don't get me wrong, I applaud the sentiment of your idea. Just not sure how it could be implemented without people taking advantage of you.

Cheers


Jan Tarnogrocki
6335
Jan Tarnogrocki 2015.04.29 06:53  

Hi Filter,

thank you for sharing your thoughts about it. I hope some others will follow and write what they think.

It is possible to code the EA in a way that it stops trading when balance has reached a predefined value. So Buyer C cannot work around the limitation.


I got a pm:

1) Lite EA - Cheap and cheerful. Only dealing with fixed smaller risk, 3 orders per day max,..etc. With most settings made permanent. Folks can buy this to try out if this is good enough for them, or it could be the stepping stone to get the next full priced EA. This is usually suitable for smaller acct too which doesn't have capability to take more deal and risks as the runway is kinda limited. Without much option to tweak the setup, you will not be able to provide them with update to .set file.

2) Unlimited EA - a pricier EA with all settings tweak able by the buyer. You can continue to provide support and update the .set file with the latest trend.

That is another, good way of create a light version of an EA and a full version. The limitation mentioned are not be prohibted, are they?

Cheers.

Stuart Browne
5793
Stuart Browne 2015.04.29 08:43  
trade_it:

Hi Filter,

thank you for sharing your thoughts about it. I hope some others will follow and write what they think.

It is possible to code the EA in a way that it stops trading when balance has reached a predefined value. So Buyer C cannot work around the limitation.


I got a pm:

That is another, good way of create a light version of an EA and a full version. The limitation mentioned are not be prohibted, are they?

Cheers.

Hi mate

You're very welcome, glad to join the debate and thanks for bringing it up :-)

Yes it is possible to create say a "lite" version and a "pro" version and there are many examples in the market. But you have to be careful how you implement it and what you restrict. Specifically, you need to create the versions in such a way that you comply with V.5 of the market rules:


 Products must not contain deliberate operation restrictions or change their functionality depending on the type of account, account number, name of a trading server and other similar conditions under which they are used.

 

So yeah, it's definitely do-able, just have to play within that rule ;-)

Cheers
Stu 

Laszlo Tormasi
2710
Laszlo Tormasi 2015.04.29 09:45  
trade_it:

Hi Filter,

thank you for sharing your thoughts about it. I hope some others will follow and write what they think.

It is possible to code the EA in a way that it stops trading when balance has reached a predefined value. So Buyer C cannot work around the limitation.


I got a pm:

That is another, good way of create a light version of an EA and a full version. The limitation mentioned are not be prohibted, are they?

Cheers.

Buyer D has two accounts one with $1000 and another with $5000 and a trade copier..
Jan Tarnogrocki
6335
Jan Tarnogrocki 2015.04.29 10:31  
lost89:
Buyer D has two accounts one with $1000 and nother with $5000 and a trade copier..

Damn, Buyer D is really clever. But limiting the number of trades per day in the lite version would not be tricked by a trade copier.

cyberryder
555
cyberryder 2015.07.22 23:18  

Jan,

you can easily go around restrictions like account size and lotsize with a trade copier.

 

I don't see much value in restricting number of trades / day. Yes - i would see how it behaves in a forward test, but i could also see the same with the demo in a backtest. Beside this, i'm not able to test the full potential of the EA.

What traders would typically want to test with your trial, is if the EA works on a specific broker, compared to the demo. They would need a full blown EA and you could restrict it to 7 days usage with a one time license code, verified over internet with a server, tied to the - now this is important - mail adress used in their MQL5 profile. Otherwise guys could generate new eMail adresses free of charge every week and "test" over and over again.

Marco vd Heijden
Moderator
4684
Marco vd Heijden 2015.07.22 23:32  
7 Day's is nothing to say anything about a robot unless it fails miserably.
JD4
1101
JD4 2015.07.23 06:02  
Jan Tarnogrocki:
Hello MQL,
Hello Buyers,
Hello Sellers,
 

There is some kind of unfairness in the payment system in MQL market. Everyone pays the same for a product disregarded how much he benefits from it.

From a Buyers view:

Buyer A has an account loaded with 5000 USD. He buys an EA for 500 USD. He makes a profit of 20%. Related to his account that is 1000 USD. He is fine in the end as he made a net profit of 500 US.

Buyer B has an account loaded with 1000 USD. He buys the same EA for the same price of 500 USD. He makes the same profit of 20%. Related to his account that is only 200 USD. He is not fine at all in the end as he made a net loss of -300 US.

From a Sellers view:

The Seller would have either one satisfied and happy customer and one that is not satisfied at all. Or he would have that one happy customer and no second one because the second one did not buy due to his small account. Both cases are not optimal. In the first there is a customer that has a bad experience and may make bad mouth propaganda about it. In the second case there is a potential customer that did not buy.

From MQL view:

Same as from a Sellers view as MQLs profit is dependent from the Sellers profit. And MQLs success depends from the Sellers success and from the buyers Success.

My suggestion to solve that problem of imbalance between what you pay and what you get:
The price for the EA must be related to the traded account size. Buyer B has only 20% of the account size from Buyer A. If Buyer B would only pay 20% from the price of 500 USD he would have to pay 100 USD. That would lead to a net profit of 100 USD for Buyer B. Now Buyer A and Buyer B would have made the same profit in terms of percentage: 10%. That would be fair.

I am writing that because I want to offer a trial version of my EA for 10 USD rent per month for accounts smaller than 100 USD.  I have written that EA to trade with really small accounts including a sound risk management. The EA is worth to pay a lot more as the risk management is working with big accounts, too of course. That means big profits for big accounts. And that means I cannot offer the EA to everyone for the same price. My question to offer the EA as a trial version and as a full version was denied by the service desk because no limitations about balance are allowed.

That is a restriction that should be reconsidered as it denies a lot of trading potential. For Buyers, Sellers and MQL.

Kind regards,

JT.

You would not go to the store and (at least not in a country that isn't socialist or communist at heart) expect to pay a different price for a computer program that is the exact same as another copy of it just because you have more money than someone else.  It is the same here.  From a sellers view, they should expect a fair price for their product, no matter who buys it.  If you are wanting to "sell" your product at a reduced price, that is your call to make, as it is yours to sell (or even give away if you choose to do so).  However, expecting someone to pay more because they might get more benefit from it because they have more money is just a reverse form of discrimination.

I do not see how people paying the exact same price for the exact same thing is in any way unfair.  If anything it sounds about as fair as you can get.  You are buying a product, this isn't like the government where you pay more in taxes because you have more income.  If you buy something more expensive, the tax on it is higher because the price is higher, but the tax is the same (if bought from the same store) on both items no matter who buys it.

As far as if the customer is satisfied or not, that is then between the seller and buyer.


As far as sound risk management, that applies as much to the large accounts as it does to the smaller ones.  How do you think they got to be large accounts?

To add comments, please log in or register