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
If you are ready, they will demand profitability not only on history.
For Expert Advisors - this rule should have been introduced from the beginning - it was not introduced from the beginning, there are cheaters and rogues in the market - thousands of Expert Advisors are on sale, but the profit from them is zero.
It is very easy to check the Market sellers for fraud - here is the formula:
-- If an EA is sold and the performance of the EA is not displayed on a real account, the seller is cheating and the EA should be withdrawn from sale.
The administration is making a foolproof check -- it seems to me that this is a whitewash -- we should check the products for what they are and what they should be used for.
If you are selling an EA, its performance should be demonstrated on a real account, that's the best and only proper check of the product.
the administration's introduction of stopgap and foolproofing checks is, to me, a point-scoring exercise - you have to check products for what they are and what they are supposed to do.
I agree, and I also like the requirement to check for error 134, if you catch this error on a real account, consider it lost
It's a very good requirement from their side - a real trading advisor should check the adequacy of funds - otherwise the entire log will be full of order cancellations.
For Expert Advisors - this rule should have been introduced from the beginning - it was not introduced from the beginning, there are cheaters and rogues in the market - thousands of Expert Advisors are on sale, but the profit from them is zero.
It is very easy to check the Market sellers for fraud - here is the formula:
-- If an EA is sold and the performance of the EA is not displayed on a real account, the seller is a fraud, and the EA should be withdrawn from sale.
I disagree. If I work with this broker, I will not search for a broker, that is equal to the first one in terms of service quality, but, in addition, allows signals.
I should see how long the EA has been updated in the Market and see if it works with profit after three, four or more months after the update. h ttps://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/586
it's not a big deal, it doesn't lead to a drain.
I disagree. There are brokers that forbid signals and if I work with this broker and everything else suits me, I will not look for a broker that matches the level of service of the first one but allows signals on top of that...
Lack of checking for correct stops may also clog the logs
It is not about the administration's requirements for market products - it is about the products and their authors.
If the Expert Advisor is written correctly with all the checks that should be made in the process of trading - then there will be no claims to such an Expert Advisor.
As far as I know, the Market moderators are reasonable and adequate people.