New Market - how do we sell new EAs now? - page 8

 
Andrey F. Zelinsky:

I've already said before that the Market service "itself" advertises only those products that are in the showcase - that's only a couple of dozen products - that's it.

The rest of the products should be shown / advertised dotty yourself (on their websites, in their profile, in the services of the resource, when communicating with formuchans in private, etc.).

And in self-point advertising - it does not matter how many other products on the market and what their quality is.

So much so, that the presence of all the other products in the marketplace can be neglected and never noticed.

I totally agree.

Andrei Fandeev:


I would suggest the resource owners the following option:
Remove all products from the Layout from publication with the option to verify only one product per week. Let the sellers know about it.
EVERY SELLER should choose which of their products to republish first.
I.e. the first few days, the ONLY QUALITY products will remain in the Market. (or interesting at least according to the authors).
Every week the seller will add another product, deciding which of the unpublished ones are worthy of attention.

At the end of the year, automatically remove the product from publication. Let the seller publish again if they see fit.
In this way there will be no more than 50 products selected and maintained by each vendor in the Market.
It is simply impossible to create more quality ones.

There is logic in this too. If publication becomes a limited resource - the developer will think a hundred times whether to introduce their trash to the market or spend an extra week to finalize their creation.

As an alternative, I would introduce a fee for publication in the Market: say, $ 30. If you want to sell something - pay $30 at a time for one space on the site. In this case, 90% of the trash will simply sweep away.

 
Boris Gulikov:

I guess I'll say it again.

"It's a hot topic.

I will repeat the suggestion I made in another thread.

No signal, no councillor.

If there is no operation monitoring of the EA within a month, the EA should be removed from the storefront. It will be removed until there is a signal that proves its work. Moreover, if monitoring is opened and closed, the amount of new signals is limited to, say, three. Further, an EA without a signal is IMMEDIATELY deleted from the Market.

Clearly, this will require human resources. I, for example, am willing to clear the market of more and more junk for no compensation.

In my opinion, if the developer does not monitor the EA's operation on a real account (even on a cent account), then the EA is trash and must be removed as unnecessary trash!

In my opinion - this is the only sensible approach to forming a base not of trash, but of really working tools.

If the creator does not use his child, then the child is rubbish. The program was created only for sale and nothing more. This is obvious.

I'm sure there will be more than enough volunteers to help clear the market in the way I've described.

Signals also have plenty of trash and their own cheats, and market cleanup given to volunteer sellers can turn into a trivial anti-competition battle.

Therefore, if such measures are introduced, they must involve buyers for justice, and strict requirements for signals and Expert Advisors compliance can be set for this purpose.

For example, if you bought an EA or downloaded a demo and proved inconsistency of its trading on your account or in the Strategy Tester with the seller's blinker, get compensation from him for product inconsistency or have to pay a fine in the Market.

 
Vasiliy Sokolov:

Alternatively, I'd introduce a fee for publishing on the Marketplace: say $30. If you want to sell something, pay a one-off fee of $30 per space on the marketplace. In this case, 90% of the rubbish will just sweep away.

I've said it many times, and I'll say it again.

I have repeatedly seen that filtering money not only does not significantly reduce the percentage of inadequates, but sometimes even increases.

That is, 90% of the rubbish and 90% of perfectly good products will be removed.

 
revers45:

There is also a lot of rubbish and cheating in signals, and cleaning up a marketplace given to volunteer sellers can turn into a trivial fight against competitors.

Therefore, if we introduce such measures, we should involve buyers for the sake of fairness, and strict requirements for signals and Expert Advisors compliance can be set for this purpose.

For example, if you bought an EA or downloaded a demo and proved inconsistency of its trading on your account or in the Strategy Tester with the seller's blinker, receive a reimbursement for inconsistency or have to pay a fine in the Market.

Yes. That happens sometimes. I encountered trades that did not match the robot's stated strategy at all on the signal. And the robot was at the top of the market. And for quite a long time. The trades that I executed on the signal had nothing to do with the robot. Only a blind man did not see that. And there are a lot of blind people, since owls were at the top.

After the seller "clipped the sheep" and negative feedback started to appear, the blinker, along with the robot, was simply removed.

In its place the seller promoted his other masterpiece. It was also at the top. And again he "clipped the sheep". This time the signal, however, was already similar to the description.

While this owl is on the market.

So we have to check the signal against the description and the expert's tests.

 

This one amused"It's unclear why a marketplace that generates profits by the very owner of this site would be so corrupted. Clearly it took a lot of time and money to check, but is it difficult to limit the number of new products from 1 developer? I know this sort of thing was discussed not too long ago, but there were hardly any consequences then, but now they are becoming more and more acute and there are fewer and fewer purchases. "

written by a man who has 78 pods

 
Реter Konow:

I don't think so. The market is a very interesting thing. That it is slowly withering away is obvious.

But demand for trading software will not die. Demand will look elsewhere for supply.

It is not the Market that is withering and dying, but Forex as it was.
Shoulders slashed, advertising banned, brokers restricted...

That's the result - things are changing.

 
Taras Slobodyanik:

It is not the Market that is withering and dying, but the Forex market as it was.
Shoulders cut, advertising banned, brokers restricted...

That's the result - things are changing.

It's like everything was, and still is, there are fewer fraudulent brokerages, and where many traded, the leverage has only grown.

 
In fact, it's about time to make the entire marketplace free, with a "Donate" button for each item instead of the price. :))
 
I would like to draw the attention of those who want to see payment for publishing their products on the Market. In that case, the Market would have to compete with auctions such as eBay. Does the Market need this and is it ready for such competition?
 
Taras Slobodyanik:

It is not the Market that is withering and dying, but Forex as it was.
Shoulders slashed, advertising banned, brokers restricted...

That's the result - everything is changing.

VCs are tacitly promoting the idea of the Grail. Not of hard and persistent work, but of the Grail.

And since belief and quest for the Grail will never die, the money-laundering machine will live on in one form or another.

The only problem is the Market. Obviously, strict moderation is expensive, and so everything has been automated.

But one factor has not been taken into account:the balance between supply and demand.

There are lovers of free money on both sides. On both sides: buyers and sellers.

It is easier to get free money by selling a tester, than to find a good EA among tester trinkets, pay good money and pray that it will not lose the deposit.

Therefore, demand for Expert Advisors decreases proportionally to the growth of supply of Expert Advisors.

As a result, the absolutely dominant supply will remain without demand and will discredit its own products by its volume and low quality.

The imbalance between supply and demand, leads to the end of sellers' earnings.

However, we could tighten the conditions for sellers and restore balance.

They don't.... Why not?

Perhaps because business prosperity is not always good for companies. If a business thrives and there is no outside competition - a company can fall apart. "The head stops needing the body...."

Hence, if there is no natural competition, you have to unite because of internal problems. If there are none, - create....


I won't say this is wrong. Integrity is paramount.

After all, if a thriving company falls apart, it becomes much weaker... Therefore, artificial problems may be necessary to maintain unity and strength.