Record on the Market - page 28
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
Well, no. You have the mistake of people who think that the result of natural selection is man. And in reality it is not. The result of natural selection is also degradation, right down to the simplest.
And it is precisely the changes in the Marketplace that have led to this selection, with the Marketplace full of junk that no one needs.
In Nature, natural selection has different directions. You're right. They don't always lead to complication of the species. Also to change and adaptation.
The problem is that the very concept of EA as a product, allows you to tuck in anything. With utilities, for example, it's obvious. They either perform the stated functions or they don't. Their quality is easily verified. They cannot deceive or disappoint. And things are more complicated with Expert Advisors. Their work is almost magic. No one knows how they work except the seller. Buyers don't know if it will pay off, or if it will cause a loss. As a product for sale - advisors are untenable.
Again, the current concept of Expert Advisors is untenable. Expert Advisors should be the "fruit" of the long complication and evolution of utilities, rather than the starting point of development. Imagine that athletes, instead of competing, simply came to the finish line and put on their medals. That's what we got.
But that's my opinion.
Ha ! We pay $100 and stamp an unlimited number of kodobasic misfits ?
No.
It makes sense to register as a vendor for free. But to exhibit a product - you have to pay a small fee. As I said above, even $1 a month - will greatly reduce the amount of outright junk. A specific amount - you have to estimate exactly on the filling of the Market.
I second that.
In fact, that's how it works offline. If the profit from the sale of the crap does not cover the monthly rent, the seller simply rakes up his crap and leaves. Because he won't be working at a loss for long.
I second that.
In fact, that's how it works offline. And if the profits from selling the shit don't cover a month's rent, the seller just shovels his shit and gets out of sight. Because he won't be working at a loss for long.
then it's 100 quid, not 1.
Any schoolboy can get 1 quid from his mum or dad.
The best option, a free limit on the number, and then paid, so the Market will not be empty and a lot of junk will be removed
and of course the life cycle of the product, if the author has disappeared, then the product is hidden, a lot of dead 10-15 dollar products will be removed
then it's 100 quid, not 1.
1 quid any schoolboy would take from his mum or dad.
I think the following would be fair.
If there were no sales of a product in the last month, the market still takes its 20% of its value (as from one sale). And if there are no funds in the account, the product is removed from the showcase until the moment the commission is paid.
So, if someone has 10 dusty products with a minimum price of $30, they'll have to charge 60 quid a month for them. And if all the products have at least one sale per month, there will be no overpayment at all.
I think the following would be fair.
If there have been no sales of a product in the last month, the market still takes its 20% of its value (as in one sale). And if there are no funds in the account, the product is removed from the showcase until the moment the commission is paid.
So if someone has 10 dusty products at a minimum price of 30 quid, they'll have to charge 60 quid a month for them. And if all the products have at least one sale a month, there will be no overpayment at all.
and if you have $500 worth of products, then you have to drop your account and go to the market from your neighbour's passport)
then it's 100 quid, not 1.
1 quid any schoolboy would take from his mum or dad
And let him take it. And a month later, he takes another quid. And after a month - another one. And in six months this schoolboy will think: *** I don't need it?
If the product will sell, he is a good schoolboy and his product is worthy to be on the Market.
The purpose of introducing a small fee is to limit the total ***. And schoolchildren - just let them learn, and try to produce their own products.
Why? Justify ?
Because the amount of money does not correlate with adequacy.
There's an interesting question about "...what would happen if...?".
So, what would happen if the Advisors section disappeared from the Market with all its contents?
1. The demand for EAs would start to gradually increase. People would turn to freelancing more and make EAs to order. If they fail, customers would blame themselves, not the developer.
2. The developers would go in search of income with double fervor, because the desire of earnings is still there, and the previous time the EA was created. After all, the desire to make money is still there, but the former niche is gone. So, we have to look for income through other niches. Utilities and indicators in the first place.
3. Since the demand for Expert Advisors would increase due to their absence on the market, the developers would implement smart semi-automatics via utilities that would help the user to launch his/her own strategy by complex parameter setting, rather than blindly use the developer's strategy. The responsibility for trading would be removed from the developers and they would no longer play the role of "market prophets".
4. The tester grails would disappear at once. Rubbish. Useless rubbish that has been accumulating for years.
5. There would be a competition in the niche of utilities which would lead the development towards more complex programs.
In short, the evolutionary development of programs could have passed through semi-automation. A path that we have not taken. But to do so, we need to remove the undeserved crown from the products we now call 'advisors'.
Maybe there are errors in this scenario. So, this is just food for thought.
because the amount of money does not correlate with adequacy.
The amount of money does not correlate. However, not wanting to lose it is the same for everyone.
In addition, the people who post fakes from Kodobase under their names are, as a rule, very poor people who are going to get money from silly users. And for them, the loss of even $1 a month would be very unpleasant.