For each product category available when publishing a product add an additional one that is the category +with MQMGuard.(ex : Expert Advisor + MQMGuard)
What is the MQM Guard ?
It is a "guarantee" that the product is lacking certain scam tricks and it is mostly what it claims to be.
How would it work ?
- The vendor has to deposit an amount , for this example let's say $100 , for a new product with the MQMGuard.
- The mql5.com commission for an MQMGuard product is 25%.
- For MQMGuard the product is uploaded with all its source files and not the ex file.
- The structural rules are similar to those of the CodeBase .
- Now , as there's moderator volunteers there can be MQMGuard check volunteers (at first because this is insane to do with a gpt , but the gpt can be learning while the checks are manual).
- Per product 5 volunteer checkers are randomly assigned .(difficulty here is to have a decent amount ,there may be difficulties too if you want to use the service desk as per employment laws + salary that is why i mention "volunteers" here).
- Goes without question the product must be commented out in english only , and the volunteers must be able to understand english .
- The 5 volunteers assigned to the product check for known scam types , the claims in the description , the title and anything else the administration does not want to happen . For instance , a random popup with a message from the vendor's server .
- That means that the volunteers must also be well versed in mql5 .
- Now , if all volunteers allow the product to pass , it is compiled on the server , the source files are deleted and is published.($100/5) is placed as a pending payment on each volunteer's account , 7day clearing).
- If not , then ($100/5) is placed as a pending payment on each volunteer's account , 7day clearing , and the remarks
are sent to the vendor and the service desk is notified if the rejection reason was a suspected scam. - Now , the 5% from the commission (of sales of the product) is assigned to ALL the volunteers that did checks for that product to be published with a clearing of 45days.
If however a complaint arises and misdeeds are discovered for that product :
- All pending volunteer payments on that product halt .
- The volunteers that green lit the product are revoked their volunteer status and no longer receive commissions for ANY product they have checked.
If a volunteer communicates with a vendor because they recognized the product while checking :
- if the vendor responds he is banned
- he volunteer rights are revoked + they are banned too.
Now , MQMGuard in its first stages should be optional with a payment by the vendor only.
In the future as the market progresses and the quality output is evaluated (meaning no abuse arises etc) it can be made mandatory and it can also accomodate 3 free products for new vendors because they may not be able to afford the program at first.
The goal of course in the end is to automate that process to eliminate the human "corruption" factor from the process ,and to achieve that the reward for those participating (who essentially will be teaching the algorithm indirectly) must be enticing.
At first due to low volume of volunteers there must be an availability indication for vendors of whether or not the MQMGuard is available (meaning if there are available volunteer checkers).
☕️
That is a good idea too .
Like an MQMTracked or something .
Hosted by MQ in their demo accounts ?
What about utilities and indicators though ?
Also we may see the "launch 20 of them" and the one that shows a nice graph on the demo monitor , unhide it .
The MQMGuard will make the mql5.com market -if not abused by the checkers of course- the least likely place for someone to fall victim to a scam . Your proposal reduces the scam likelihood as well , i like it . There is however something they may not like in the demo signal solution . Sales will likely plummet .
Yes at first the "human looking at source code" may make vendors cringe but as the algorithm learns to check on its own , when it gets automated mq will end up with a massive advantage over other markets .I understand your point, however, I believe that might be too strict. Some of us here might be students, studying finance, 100 USD can be a budget for anyone. Moreover, I wouldn't be personnally okay with having someone else getting access to my EA's source code, especially volunteers.
I do not understand as well why would you like to detect "Martingale and Grids". These are trading systems as well, there is no need to discriminate them. The only case were that would be legitimate, is if the EA itself if claiming to not use either of those systems. However, even in that case, there are a LOT of definitions for "Martingale" for example. And, in some case, your EA is made to be a Martingale, which is the case with some of mine, would I be penalized too? Even though the point of my EA is to be a Martingale?
I do agree on something however: scams are a huge issue on the MQL5 market, I can't stand seeing extremly pricy EAs on the market that are total scams yet getting bought like cookies, while individual sellers pain to climb up the ranks of the market.
The signal system is also not that good. At the moment, most of those EAs would for instance have a small balance signal, with a very high leverage, therefore showing huge % of growth, and the signal would get deleted / replaced as soon as it blew up the account.
Yeah that's why in its pilot phase it could be optional , but hey if you do it you get a 10x in your rating over the others . Why is the price in place in the pilot phase and the 3 free ones are not ? because there would be a flood while everyone tries to get the 10x rating (i mean if you have a simple tool , you break no rules , the 10x boost is enticing) and mq would have to "hand in pocket" those free guards at first .
It detects it and it becomes part of its properties , so when you look at the properties table it tells you and furthermore you can search by it and when you search martingale you really get martingale for instance . Now if the vendor says no martingale and it has martingale ,you understand.
The signal system is also not that good. At the moment, most of those EAs would for instance have a small balance signal, with a very high leverage, therefore showing huge % of growth, and the signal would get deleted / replaced as soon as it blew up the account.
Yeah this is a nuanced case too that this solution may solve (the guard) , and also Dominik's idea ties in well here because i've seen numerous times (you too) the monitoring signal url being changed on the ea overview . One of them was caught on video by one of the "youtube ea reviewers" .
It detects it and it becomes part of its properties , so when you look at the properties table it tells you and furthermore you can search by it and when you search martingale you really get martingale for instance . Now if the vendor says no martingale and it has martingale ,you understand.
Yeah I get that. However, I still stand on the fact that there's a lot of ways of implementing a Martingale (keeping positions opened? closing them? doubling lots? using a formula? etc...), therefore making it difficult to detect 100%.
I still however would not be ready to provide my source code to someone outside of my organization / team however...
I believe the signal thing might be the best alternative.
Yeah I get that. However, I still stand on the fact that there's a lot of ways of implementing a Martingale (keeping positions opened? closing them? doubling lots? using a formula? etc...), therefore making it difficult to detect 100%.
I still however would not be ready to provide my source code to someone outside of my organization / team however...
I believe the signal thing might be the best alternative.
Yes of course . This proposal is a hard sell . For instance the first thing that crosses your mind is
"The volunteer must be well versed in mql5" , which implies someone who possibly can launch products will look and understand your code .
But the initial phase will be very "appealing" to both sides .
On one hand you'll have the vendor who'll consider and think to themselves :
- -i'm not a scammer
- -my code is well formatted
- -anyone with experience can reproduce what i've done anyway
- -i like the rating boost , i'll do it !
Then as these vendors start requesting the service there will be volunteers (who are approached to be offered to participate) who will think :
- i know mql5
- if i do a decent job and examine the code carefully ,i can earn a lot in the future because these products will be boosted and will be fewer in the beginning gathering -relatively- more sales and attention
Then it can spread .
If it spreads , besides the skeptics -which is understandable- there is one more group that will not submit their code for the service . The scammers.
Yes of course . This proposal is a hard sell . For instance the first thing that crosses your mind is
"The volunteer must be well versed in mql5" , which implies someone who possibly can launch products will look and understand your code .
But the initial phase will be very "appealing" to both sides .
On one hand you'll have the vendor who'll consider and think to themselves :
- -i'm not a scammer
- -my code is well formatted
- -anyone with experience can reproduce what i've done anyway
- -i like the rating boost , i'll do it !
Then as these vendors start requesting the service there will be volunteers (who are approached to be offered to participate) who will think :
- i know mql5
- if i do a decent job and examine the code carefully ,i can earn a lot in the future because these products will be boosted and will be fewer in the beginning gathering -relatively- more sales and attention
Then it can spread .
If it spreads , besides the skeptics -which is understandable- there is one more group that will not submit their code for the service . The scammers.
Even if that does happen, I do not agree with the mandatory formatting using MQL’s coding standard.
Yes i don't like the formatting either but it is suggested per the automation of the service in mind.
Theoretically (its insanely difficult tho) since the CodeBase + Articles have this layout it could be used for an initial model
and then as the volunteers interact with code and find issues and log their remarks then it will keep adjusting and learning .
The end goal , if possible , is automation . No volunteers .
Hence the suggestion for the format , because there is a database of that already.
I meant that these vendors will be the first "movers", i'm not saying everything is not unique.
And yeah you (and any decent vendor) has the users that trust them . For them whether or not you use the MQMGuard it won't make a difference because they know you .
But those who end up buying the junk , they will gradually turn to preferring only MQMGuard products .
But look at it this way , you will be taking a risk but the end goal will benefit all of the vendors . (Those who don't look for ways to slide in the clients wallet with something mq has not considered or has not seen yet).
Response from service desk
![MQL5 - Language of trade strategies built-in the MetaTrader 5 client terminal](https://c.mql5.com/i/registerlandings/logo-2.png)
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
What is the MQM Guard ?
It is a "guarantee" that the product is lacking certain scam tricks and it is mostly what it claims to be.
How does it work ?
If the rejection reason is some inconsistency then the remarks are sent to the vendor . If its a suspected scam it is checked further and if it is indeed a scam attempt the vendor is banned.
Now , the service in its first stages should be optional with a payment by the vendor .
In the future as the market progresses and the quality output is evaluated (meaning no abuse arises etc) it can be made mandatory and it can also accommodate 3 free products for new vendors because they may not be able to afford the service at first .
The goal of course in the end is to automate that process to eliminate the human "corruption" factor from the process ,and to achieve that the reward for those participating (who essentially will be teaching the algorithm indirectly) must be enticing.
Pros :
Cons :
If all the volunteers decide to just allow products you won't realize until a scam emerges from an MQMGuard product .
So you could use mql5 familiar users you trust first for the pilot of the service , moderators for instance .
Edit On 30.07.2023 17:45 GMT :