Crazy cache of testing agents - page 7
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
Why $5? If I pay $150 a year it will be $12.5 a month - $5 I earned in 4 months - i.e. I am expected to earn 12.5 times more per month or I can switch agents on for less than two hours and get the same income as before - saving on electricity.
Well you suggested lowering the cost, didn't you?
It used to be $5 in 4 months with agents working 0.5% of the time. Now it will be cheap, and everyone will rush to optimize, and the workload will be 100%. But the price will be lower, and the end result will be about the same (for you).
This is rough, of course. But I think it's done on purpose - the network should not be busy all the time (which is exactly what will happen at low cost), and should be ready to solve problems as quickly as possible for someone who is willing to pay.
I haven't solved real problems with the cloud - I just want to understand how much it will cost me to solve my tasks in the cloud compared to desktop PCs.
The point is that development of ATS takes time not only for optimization, but also for analyzing results, making changes, adding algorithm, besides a person needs sleep - so it is important for me to take the free time between working on ATS and waiting for optimization results - now it is about 10 times faster - for my rhythm. That's why it's not clear why I should pay for extra speed that I don't need.
I do not optimize all the parameters - all individually, and then, after analysis, bring together the best versions of the results of individual components in a general optimization - it saves a lot of time.
So put in 1-2 dollars and run a test optimization! MQ even gave bonuses for this purpose.
And instant results are a dream. How to use it - it's up to you, you can analyze it in 10 hours.
But the point doesn't change: you have to solve a problem of conditional complexity in 100 computer-hours. You can solve it on one computer in 100 hours, or you can solve it on 50 computers in 2 hours. The cost of solving it will not change (and so will the total resources).
Well, you suggested lowering the cost, didn't you?
It used to be $5 in four months with agents working 0.5% of the time. Now it will be cheap, and everyone will rush to optimize, the load will be 100%. But the price will be lower, and the end result will be about the same (for you).
It's about supply and demand - there is no demand now, but there is a supply that is not covered - I don't know how the dynamics change - how many participants come and go, but it's obvious that there is little incentive to stay and give away resources, if the goal is to make money - there is no demand. As I showed earlier, if there is demand, I can earn 12 times more in the same period of time - obviously that is more interesting than sitting and saving resources that depreciate. I think that the participants in the network are mostly admins, who are quietly trying to make money from the company's resources - i.e. they have nothing to lose from making money or not. I believe that the opportunity to sell unclaimed computer resources is an opportunity to accelerate depreciation - that is, return some of the money invested in the purchase of the PC in kind.
Accordingly, if there is demand and people want to use optimization, there will be a supply.
This is rough, of course. But I think this is done on purpose - the network should not be busy all the time (which is exactly what will happen at a low price), but should be ready to solve problems as quickly as possible for someone who is willing to pay.
I don't think it's done for VIP tasks and clients. If demand grows, supply will also grow, probably in the same proportions - it is difficult to speculate about the dynamics without statistics, but Renat is silent.
So put in 1-2 dollars and run a test optimization! MQ even gave bonuses for this specifically.
And instant results are a dream. How to use it - it's up to you, you can analyze it in 10 hours.
But the point doesn't change: you have to solve a problem of conditional complexity in 100 computer-hours. You can solve it on one computer in 100 hours, or you can solve it on 50 computers in 2 hours. The cost of solving it won't change (and so will the total resources).
I disagree, now reward depends on demand and PR - demand is distributed to more powerful PC (if I'm wrong, let Renat refute), while I want to give work to weaker, as a result they will get money, and I will spend more time waiting for results - I would be fine with that.
And the idea of organizing a community with a network of testing agents has been stalled. I've organized such a network for myself for two dozen cores and accordingly I accelerated testing a little. I wish you to do the same...
Why don't you lead the administration of this community? Even in this thread there are people with the same idea - i.e. there is a demand for it. However, I would like to hear your opinion, how will you divide the resources?
Yes, I agree, it all comes down to the issue of fair pricing, and the problem is non-market pricing. There are buyers, there are sellers, but there is no market because the price is set by someone at the top. So there is no balance of interests and no efficiency.
In comparison, in Amazon's cloud service, the price is regulated by the market, according to the exchange principle. Buyers and sellers of resources can set their own prices or work at current market prices. Accordingly, supply and demand are always balanced.
And here they are inventing some clever abstract formulas to calculate the price, which has little relation to reality.
I myself have been using the cloud for mathematical calculations until recently, but then I started having problems with the cost of it all: the deducted sums sometimes did not correspond to the amount of work performed. I've still not been able to work this out with tech support. So I don't use it yet, or use it very carefully.
That's my point - it's like buying an expensive car and driving it around on holidays...
Regarding strange deductions, can you give me some examples in numbers, because Renat indirectly refuted the figures of another community member...
As I showed earlier, if there is demand, I could earn 12 times as much in the same period of time
You can't, because the price has to go down for there to be such demand.
Well, it is impossible to make money in the cludes, impossible! It is not for that purpose.
I do not think it was done for the VIP tasks and customers. If demand grows, supply will also grow, perhaps in the same proportions - it is difficult to speculate about the dynamics without statistics, but Renat is keeping silent.
Giving $10 to save 2 days of your time is a VIP task? Don't be ridiculous.
You can't, because the price has to be lowered for there to be such a demand.
It's impossible to make money in the cludes, it's impossible! That's not what it's for.
Firstly, you are wrong - it is just for making money - otherwise MQs wouldn't take a commission.
Secondly, I have clearly shown that using 100%of resources at current prices you can earn 500 c.u. by investing 150 - a profit of 350 - 233% per annum, which is clearly not normal! Profit of 30% is sane and easily achievable with the increase in users by reducing the cost of resources.
Giving up $10 to save 2 days of your time is a VIP challenge? Don't be ridiculous.
If you sit and wait, then perhaps it's acceptable, but it's a matter of knowing how to manage your time, not economic feasibility.
Firstly, you are wrong - it is just for earning - otherwise MQs wouldn't take a commission.
Secondly, I have clearly shown that using 100% resources at current prices you can earn 500 c.u. by investing 150 - a profit of 350 - 233% per annum, which is clearly not normal! Profit of 30% is sane and easily achievable with the increase in users by reducing the cost of resources.
Stay with your erroneous opinion. On all counts.
My opinion has been argued and supported by figures, while yours has proven to be devoid of logic - it is not even possible to help you change it.
My opinion has been argued and supported by figures, while yours has proven to be devoid of logic - it's not even possible to help you change it.
I am already scolding myself for getting into an argument with you ;)
Where are the arguments?
Already scolding myself for getting into an argument with you ;)
Where's the argument?
Arguments that the service is not made to provide resources for free, and therefore to generate revenue (not necessarily profit):
- The service takes a commission - income for the creators
- Provider of resources receives remuneration - the estimated remuneration exceeds CC costs and if you consider not a lump sum but with the amortization for 3-5 years, the profit is even more
substantial
Arguments that it is possible to earn under certain conditions:
- The calculation shows that the income per year should be 0.5k, while the cost of buying a PC is 0.15k - a fact. The fact that such an income is not achievable at current rates - confirms the lack of demand, so I propose to reduce the fees in order to increase demand, reduce the estimated income and increase the actual income, and most importantly to popularize the service and reduce costs for it.
- The power costs of the PC vary depending on the resource load, but are not that significant - obviously people use the PC for other purposes - i.e. it works in the user's interest at the time it provides its resources to the network member, so the power costs are not that significant in this case.
Your talking points:
- Cloud for providing resources to traders, by other users who are bored and run agents for general networking for ideological reasons.
- Better to pay more and get "everything" now, even if that "everything" will not be in demand in the coming days.
No other theses extracted - expand on my list if I'm not catching any of your thoughts.