1200 subscribers!!! - page 121
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
There was a good comment on this in the reviews: "I don't think it's OK to lose half of a 7-month profit in 2 weeks. So please don't talk to me about money management".
This is a consequence of the provider knowing they will not be held liable to subscribers for losses. And the payment for the month of more than 60 kilobucks will be received in full. The losses on the account to which the signal is tied up are a slap in the face to her.
It's the same guy. I already wrote that.
He's Mashkovtsev, she's Mashkovtsev.
If I were the moderators, I'd put him in a permanent ban.
+++
In my opinion, it's not people who engage in pure fraud that should be banned - it's the funds they receive from subscribers.
So that they do not have to be punished.
No one knows how big a family those Mashkovtsovs have, for example)))
In my opinion, it's not people who engage in pure fraud that should be banned - it's the funds they receive from subscribers.
So that they do not have to be punished.
No one knows how big a family those Mashkovtsovs have, for example)))
+++
Strange that with the huge increase, the monthly income is only 9%
Can't go below 1.1270, will survive this time.
Down lower. The mower is sticking out!
Down lower. You're sticking out!
Me?
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and trading strategy testing
1200 subscribers!!!
Vitaly Muzichenko, 2019.03.05 18:54
Look at the potential
This is because the provider knows that he will not be held liable to subscribers for losses. They will be paid in full for a month of more than 60 kilobucks. The losses on the account to which the signal is tied up are a fraction of what they are worth.
How can the ISP or anybody else be held liable to their subscribers/investors? In the '90s it was clear: iron on the belly. And the provider should not be liable to them.
Liability should be equal to remuneration -- there is a positive trading result for the subscription time -- there is payment for the subscription -- no positive result, no payment.
I.e. the money for the subscription -- 20% goes to the MC anyway -- and 80% if there is a positive trading result goes to the provider -- if there is a negative result, it goes back to the subscriber.
Now -- when there are enough subscribers -- the ISP doesn't care how long it will last -- a couple of days is enough, a couple of trades and the ISP has already earned from the signal.
Liability should be equal to remuneration -- there is a positive trading result for the subscription time -- there is payment for the subscription -- no positive result, no payment.
I.e. the money for the subscription -- 20% goes to the MC anyway -- and 80% goes to the provider if there is a positive trading result -- if there is a negative result, it goes back to the subscriber.
Now -- when enough subscribers are getting subscribed -- the ISP doesn't care how long it will last -- a couple of days is enough, a couple of trades and the ISP has already earned from the signal.
These are not clear criteria: positive result/negative result. What influence will the dangling drawdown have on the "positive" result? No one will count by equity.
But in case of margin call (so), the service provider must be deprived of payment and 80% must be returned to subscribers.
By the way, Juloux has a fundamentally different model: subscribers pay back 20% of actually obtained profit when they receive it. If there were losses in the previous months, the subscribers pay nothing until the losses are covered. For the most successful signals, the number of subscribers reaches 8000.
How can a provider or anyone at all be held liable to subscribers/investors? In the 90s it is understandable: an iron on the belly. Yes and the provider should not be liable to them.
Liability should be equal to remuneration -- there is a positive trading result for the subscription time -- there is payment for the subscription -- no positive result, no payment.
I.e. the money for the subscription -- 20% goes to the MC anyway -- and 80% if there is a positive trading result goes to the provider -- if there is a negative result, it goes back to the subscriber.
Now -- when there are enough subscribers -- the ISP doesn't care how long it will last -- a couple of days is enough, a couple of trades and the ISP has already earned from the signal.
It sounds fair and logical. If you do not start thinking about details But it's not so easy and clear. First of all, not everyone subscribes at the same time, which means that you have to keep track of every single subscriber additionally. Secondly, the subscriber may arbitrarily increase the lot, combining it with his trade, which may lead to unfortunate results. In short, for technical reasons it is very difficult to do, it is easy to talk and reason on the forum, of course.
Sounds fair and logical. If you don't start thinking about the details... it doesn't get so easy and straightforward. Firstly, not everyone subscribes at the same time, which means that every subscriber has to be tracked additionally. Secondly, the subscriber may arbitrarily increase the lot, combining it with his trade, which may lead to unfortunate results. In short, for technical reasons it is very difficult to do, it is easy to talk and argue on the forum, of course.
There is no technical difficulty at all - we are looking at the Provider's result - it does not matter what is the Subscriber's one.
Subscriber subscribed to a signal -- recorded balance/means status -- subscription term expired, took balance/means reading -- result minus -- 80% returned.
If you wish, you can find a very simple and clear variant of individual evaluation of trading results.
It is not clear criteria: positive result/negative result. What influence will the dangling drawdown have on the "positive" result? After all, no one will calculate the profit by equity.
But in case of margin call (so), the service provider must be deprived of payment and 80% must be returned to subscribers.
By the way, Juloux has a fundamentally different model: subscribers pay back 20% of actually obtained profit when they receive it. If there were losses in the previous months, the subscribers pay nothing until the losses are covered. For the most successful signals, the number of subscribers reaches 8000.
Of course, it is better and correct to count by equity.