1200 subscribers!!! - page 21
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
You have to earn by trading, not by signals. I think this is a good idea.
Will the author of the signal with 2-5 subscribers trade as carefully as the author with 1,000 subscribers?
By the way, the statement"cent account!Provider can afford the higher risks" is not relevant. The Provider can no longer afford it )
I read that some people cannot reach the top and their signal is not visible.
I suggest creating a topic where a person could pay attention to his signal, give a brief description and answer questions.
And this topic should be in the top.
This branch will be useful and at the same time useless - because everything is clear - at the moment two indicators:
1) growth -- which is achieved with a balance of $1-10 dollars by aggressive trading -- if it worked, then publish the signal
2) amount of subscribers - achieved by marketing and you can't position the signal at the top without marketing
I.e. it turns out that neither "growth" index, nor "amount of subscribers" index, on the one hand, do not give an objective description of the signal, and on the other hand, do not allow the signal to reach the top without, let's say, "falsifications" of these indexes.
As for "growth" idea -- is to count signal indicators only if there is some minimum balance, such as $100 -- this cuts off the super-increased risks of cheating at the start of the 1-2 dollars.
As for "number of subscribers" -- there's only one option -- signal marketing shouldn't affect evaluation of "signal quality".
Will an author of a signal with 2-5 subscribers trade as cautiously as an author with 1,000?
By the way, the statement"Cent account!Provider can afford the higher risks" is not relevant. The Provider cannot afford it anymore.)
I.e. it turns out that neither indicator "growth", nor indicator "number of subscribers" -- on the one hand, do not give an objective description of the signal -- on the other hand, do not give a signal without, so to speak, "cheating" of these indicators to reach the top.
As for "growth" idea -- is to count signal indicators only if there is some minimum balance, such as $100 -- this cuts off the super-increased risk of cheating at the start of the 1-2 dollars.
As for "number of subscribers" -- only one option -- signal marketing should not affect the evaluation of "signal quality".
Yes, it's an unhealthy situation, when 50 accounts are being wound up, and the ones, with the best indicators, are being pushed into signals and made with a completely different trade. But in the end, this race leads to nice numbers, and nice numbers are also marketing that popularizes the service.
As for the number of subscribers - if it works in the rating and works automatically due to psychological reasons, then why not invest a million or two rubles (maybe this is what they will come to when they view the service as a business) in advertising their not the most outstanding signal attracting customers from outside andpopularizing the service.
Abnormal number of subscribers itself is news, which can also be used for marketing purposes (this branch is an example) that... Well, you get the idea.
As a result, more users come to the service, but at the same time, more will spread out or use other signals in parallel. More commission will get MQ.
P.S. Those who trade "for themselves" makes no sense to use the service signals, they simply can not compete with signals that are considered as a product for sale, with all that implies (nice indicators, advertising, etc.).Yes, it is an unhealthy situation when 50 accounts are wound up and those who survive with the best indicators are thrown into the signals and continue with a completely different trade. But this race eventually leads to nice numbers, and nice numbers are also marketing, which popularizes the service.
As for the number of subscribers - if it works in the rating and then works automatically for psychological reasons, then why not invest a million or two rubles (this is probably what they will come to when they view the service as a business) into advertising their not the most outstanding signal attracting customers from outside andpopularizing the service.
Abnormal number of subscribers itself is news, which can also be used for marketing purposes (this branch is an example) that... well, you get the idea.
As a result, more users will come to the service, but at the same time, more users will go to other signals or use it in parallel. MQ will get more commission.
There are three services on the resource:
-- Freelance -- there's only one index of "quality" here -- it's number of works -- recently counted number of works for last 365 days + introduced two tops -- one general only by number of works -- second inside agreement by number of works + by publication in articles and code base
-- Market -- there is no "quality" metric here at all -- only marketing/sales -- there is no other way to evaluate a market product -- i.e., there are simply no other ways
-- Signals -- there is a group of indicators -- and Signals is the only service where you can evaluate "quality" -- i.e. if you can evaluate "quality", why do you need to add "marketing" to it
As for "popularization of the service" - the service is unprecedentedly popular in the terminal.
The fact that the top will be the signal "spiked" by risky startup of 1-2 dollars + "spiked" by marketing, then the release of the signal with 1000 subscribers - "popularizes" the service specifically
There are three services on the resource:
I meant the discussed service - Signals
I meant the Signals service we were discussing.
More on the subject at hand:
-- to get subscribers -- you have to get to the top
-- you can't get to the top without subscribers
So it turns out that there is no point in publishing a signal.
For example, in Freelance the problem of dumping was discussed -- and there were suggestions that it makes no sense to bring in a customer -- i.e. you bring him, and he goes to low prices.
But Signals has a different situation -- it's described in the post above -- you advertise your signal, bring a subscriber, and he goes to a top signal. The only difference is that in Freelance you can order on the side. But you cannot sign a signal without Service.
So it turns out that there is no need to bother with the signal, unless you can connect to the steep marketing. Moreover, you still have to deal with the signal for at least a year. Is there a point in it, if the prospect is initially clear? In this case it is easier to deal with PAMM or just to trade by yourself without demonstrations.
The moment that the top will be a signal "screwed" risky start at 1-2 dollars + "screwed" marketing - then the plum signal with 1000 subscribers - "popularizes" the service specifically
Why can't there be quality where there is marketing? Providers who earn on their subscribers, not on trading, are interested in remaining as long as possible and working with the highest quality. The Provider reduces the risks and the yield will fall to 2-3% per month, while some of it will be spent on other signals, and rightly so.
No signal is immune to plum or negligence of a provider, especially if he is in the race for ratings growth and does not care about subscribers.
So it turns out that there is no need to bother with the signal - unless you can connect a cool marketing. All the more so because you have to worry about the signal for at least a year. Is there any sense in it, if the prospect is clear from the beginning? In this case, it is easier to associate with PAMM or just trade on your own without demonstrations.
There are no easy ways. But someone will be inspired by the success story and the wave of probability will take out the new leader.