Record on the Market - page 32
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
maybe, but I'm also a "dinosaur from the late 90's" I saw Turbo Pascal and the rudiments of graphics in the form of libraries which no matter how you spin it - you still get Norton Commander ))))
But with the advent (and my transition) to Delphi, as they say, that's where life just started.... I don't really know how to make active windows, checkboxes, etc. without OOP, I guess in theory you can, but I don't even know how to do it without OOP, as they say you get used to a good thing!
Check out my profile. (Just to enrich your experience).
It's all there without OOP.
Guys, why don't you take the PLO thing somewhere else? I'm sick of it.
I agree.
The amount of money does not correlate. However, not wanting to lose it is the same for everyone.
I have witnessed many attempts to filter people by money. i have never seen a successful one.
the most striking example is btc-e. they increased chat access limit there to $1000. the share of inadequates may have even increased for me.
the proportion of inadequates may even have increased, as far as i'm concerned.
The same thing happens with paid groups.
I have witnessed many attempts to filter people by money. i have not seen any successful ones.
The most striking example is btc-e. they increased the access limit to chat rooms to $1000. the share of inadequates may have even increased, in my opinion.
same thing with paid gated groups.
Adequate moderation solves everything. They just took it away and replaced it with automatic moderation.
No, who's arguing about adequate moderation...
We are thinking about what to do with automatic moderation ! And here, in my opinion, the introduction of a small fee is sensible enough.
I mean, who's to say anything about adequate moderation...
We are thinking about what to do with automatic moderation ! And here I think a small fee is reasonable enough.
1. A global purge.
2. New publishing rules and conditions.
//--------------------------------------------------
The first point is necessary to "revitalise" the Market.
The second, is the only measure that can stop the flow of junk discrediting the Market. If "live" moderation does not pay for itself, then we need to influence the sellers with strict conditions.
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 well 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.
MQ have established a model of 20% of sales, a marketplace for sales, code protection - this model has attracted users (of all sorts) and given development of the platform. Whether another model will work, like fees for exposed product, dunno, it's both a fish to fry and a twist at the same time.
Then autovalidation and some other stuff was done. There's almost a seamless regulation/ordering of participants going on.
Would that and in general the expansion of mt4-5, by making at once a fee for placement or like rent, probably unlikely, because other platforms were plentiful, and one can write hell world there as well.
The bank(s) have video identity, and somehow they live.
I believe it is necessary to create a system for a deeper evaluation of products produced under the "machines" of local specialists.
Work out quality gradients, as profitability in the first place!
It is necessary to take into account the diversity of functionality of products created according to TOR, the speed of execution of work, as well as non-standard solutions.
The uniqueness of the completed work among the mass of EAs/indicators, etc..
Single orders made by one performer, along with the failure of the same order from other professionals - put in a separate checklist that counts some points, or something like that, tagged "no analogues, unique work".