Is it possible to implement a RELIABLE accounting of the aggregate position structure in MT5? - page 9
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
Exactly, no one is going to change. Moreover, the "exchange" or "bank" will come and say, make a survey of the processes as we have them, and write us a software that will implement it - "as it is". And not a single step aside. That's why I'm writing that "you can't". Although, in the main, "you can". But, it has to be a "bank" or "exchange", they should want to do it - not programmers.
Of course they won't. And not because of laziness. Just think, what will then reflect exchange turnover per day, for example. Yes, and other indicators will be bullshit. Now, they will do their best for the fantasies of some-some.))) They want to host their bullshit on exchange servers. Like, guys, keep a reflection of my contradictory nature, because I myself can not sort out the complexities of my multi-personal behavior, you just count for me, what of this nonsense in the dry sediment falls out. You'll also have to disregard that and broadcast it for me, but I'm a fucking customer who is always right, even if he's delusional.
Guys, look again at how it is done at Dukascopy, which is audited by Swiss audit companies. The audit companies do not care about the database of virtual positions, just as the broker does not care whether there is a database or not. If you store the database locally, will there be any claim to you? And if the broker allows you to store the database - will there be claims against him? It is just a technical service, which attracts broker's clients because of the convenience and reliability of the accounting of the aggregate position structure.
Discussions about how it should be, according to the "banks", with representatives of the "banks" themselves - Russian of course, not Swiss - are on several forums. What is there to argue about. By the way, you can also see there why they, the "banks", do not want mt4, for example. Very simply, because they do not like it, loco and so on, in terms of the legal requirements for them.
Gentlemen, has anyone anywhere else seen a terminal where the trader only sees the aggregate position?
Have you seen anything other than MT4 ?
Discussions about how the "banks" think it should be with representatives of the "banks" themselves - Russian, naturally, not Swiss - are on several forums. What is there to argue about.
The DB on the broker's trading server, is purely a rudimentary functionality of the broker's technical department. This functionality and its support is delivered to the broker together with the purchased trading software. Whether the broker has a DB or not, it does not affect its work in any way!
There are only two types of messages in the branch:
- From pro-programmers who write something sensible about the problem, suggesting solutions;
- from merchants, who, of course, do not see the technical problem. Therefore, they philosophize and flub.
Dear Merchants, I ask you, if you see the technical response given in the title of the thread, speak up. If not - do not.
P.S. I do not exclude that after this post there will be a flood of "I want and will be!
The DB on the broker's trading server, this is purely a rudimentary functionality of the broker's technical department. This functionality and its support is delivered to the broker together with the purchased trading software. Whether the broker has DB or not, it does not reflect in any way on his work!
Well look, here's the situation. A very rough one, to demonstrate the principles. The bank says to the quotas, give us a software that would be the same as we have now, but that it would be like mt. Quotas, but, like what, Mt4 will not do? They said, - No, it does not matter, they may take us by the gills, it had something else to do. Quotas, - okay, let's do it, - tell them how. The banks, - let's do it this way, look at our way. They looked - let's do it. Imagine coming to the quota bank, and they say - we did everything, but, out of the kindness of his heart, adding something there, so that not only you were cool, but also a couple of Lokers from the forum - that they would have the same kind word about us. What the banks will say on this - it is not difficult to guess. Very rough, but that's about it, in general terms.
By the way, all coincidences are coincidental and events are made up.
And the ways of solution are already voiced here. The comment field, and the expert field, plus homemade functions with the magic word pseudo-mejic. Or two or three or four accounts.
Oh, for fuck's sake!
The position structure you are so keen to see is for an advisor who makes transaction decisions based not on the current account and portfolio balance, but on his own internal quirks. This is flawed logic that has NOTHING to do with reality (money and positions). Well make an effort to think about it.
All an advisor needs to know once turned on is not his story, but his balance sheet and portfolio. That's it.
Of course he won't. And not because of laziness. Just think, what would then reflect exchange turnover per day, for example. Yes, and other indicators will be bullshit. Now, they will do their best for the fantasies of some-some people.))) They want to host their bullshit on exchange servers. Like, guys, keep a reflection of my contradictory nature, because I myself can not sort out the complexities of my multi-personal behavior, you just count for me, what of this nonsense in the dry sediment falls out. Of course, you will have to disregard your figures and translate them for me, but I am a fucking client, who is always right, even if he is delirious.
Yes, it is perfectly possible to make orders through the exchange, put them into a bet, keep a depo account, etc. And at the same time the client-broker connection will be MT4 style. And it is even possible to conduct virtual lots. The only thing is the partial execution. What changes is only the internal format of the database and the interface with the user. Of course, this will not affect the rates of exchange turnover, etc. Moreover, we can parallel lead orders in MT4 style and standard exchange, if the client wishes, for example.
Read a bit further, then maybe the problem will become clearer.
I have read it. I don't see why it doesn't fit.
For example, the situation on page 4. 4 with going to sleep and the EA being cut off -- we close the position, delete the EA's pending positions, go to the side, knowing that even if we restart the EA, it will think that it has no open positions.
Maybe I don't understand something, so tell me clearly, give me an example.
In any case -- if there is a problem, it has to be solved somehow.
Oh, for fuck's sake!
The position structure you are so keen to see is for an advisor who makes transaction decisions based not on the current account and portfolio balance, but on his own internal quirks. This is flawed logic that has NOTHING to do with reality (money and positions). Well make an effort to think about it.
All an advisor needs to know once turned on is not his story, but his balance sheet and portfolio. Everything.
After first switch-on, this information is sufficient. After a restart, it is not.