No, If you know what subscribers in C2 like, you can start to have subs in two weeks.
I just checked some of good strategies, they started to have subs in about one month.
I also saw a strategy had about 20 subs in 3 weeks. Because that guy made like 2-3 trades a day and only had one losing trade in a few weeks. But that strategy busted a few weeks later.
Your friend must have a strategy that was not good enough to draw attention of subs.200% potential with <25% drawdowns is not good enough now in C2.
Also you need to offer free subscriptions when your strategy start. You will then have some subs to take advantage of this offer and when your strategy keep making money, a few weeks later when they make some money on your strategy, you start to charge fee and they wonât leave you.
If you can have a strategy with 10% monthly profit and lower than 10% drawdown in long term, this strategy would be top one in C2 and break C2 history record.
I am not worried about reverse engineer, because even a guy sit beside me watching me trading, he wonât know how my strategy works.
I will start the challenge next week. I will be using a trade copier with a UK VPS⌠So I will go about my normal trading on my main brokerâs MT4 install with a duplicate instance on the UK VPS for copying to FTMO (UK server) as well as to an offshore broker (Amsterdam server).
I view the potential 300K as an extra free 80-90K to play with at my normal trade risk. It would also allow me to tap into the liquidity pool of a major EU broker that I would never have access to.
Ok fair enough⌠with the 2 you mentioned⌠what was their account size, accuracy & % gain at the point they started getting subs, number of trades a day & were they FX, Stocks or Futures.
I still wouldnât sell signals because I wouldnât want my trade history out there for all eternity like that.
Ok looks like⌠Stocks or futures traded, >55% accuracy, no losing months, fairly active, >100% potential, <25% drawdowns will get you to the top.
One thing I did find with collective years ago when i first looked at it was that the most popular systems were futures or stock traded and the overwhelming majority of sellers didnât have the live account badge, almost everyone was demo. Is that still the case?
"the overwhelming majority of sellers didnât have the live account badge, "
I guess it is.
What C2 subs like most is low drawdown, lower than 10% or even 5%.
So a traderâs live account would not keep a low drawdown like this.Because that would mean he make much less money with his live account. So C2 strategies are built to have much lower drawdown than live accounts. If you connect your live account with c2, that means you make more money with C2 and make less money with your live account.
Suppose you make 100% on day one, lose 30% on day two.
This is not risky for a live account because you still have +70%.
For a C2 strategy, a sub who subscribed on day one, he is not worried because he is still up 70%.
For a sub who subscribed on day two, he would lose 30% and has a -30% account. He is worried and may unsubscribe immediately. This is why a live account has different risk tolerance than a C2 account.
For those considering signal selling as a possible alternative option to a prop firm⌠I had some time to kill, so i decided to burn 2 hours of my life never to return doing a little statistical analysis of recent collective 2 signal sellers.
My search criteria was⌠Signal sellers with >100% projected annual returns + <30% drawdowns + >$40 sub price
And these are the resultsâŚ
30-45 days old = 14 signal sellers, 3 (21%) had subs, $1380 combined subs month
46-70 days old = 8 signal sellers, 1 (13%) had subs, $50 combined subs month
71-100 days old = 20 signal sellers, 4 (20%) had subs, $2550 combined subs month
30-100 days old = 42 signal sellers, 8 (19%) had subs, $3980 total subs month
This doesnât look very promising. While the chances of attracting subs are significantly higher than the 8% that pass the FTMO challenge, the combined subs of the best performing new systems the last 3 months is only 4K total a month.
In my opinion it doesnât seem worth the effort, but thatâs me.
What is your opinion, does it make more sense to ask for a very low sub fee to attract a big mass of people or rather show high image and knowledge for high fee but risk to have any or just a very few people paying for you?
If you apply wrong criteria, your result will be wrong.
Take your drawdown below 10%, if you want to make serious money in C2.
Drawdown is the most important factor.
If your strategy has a 5% drawdown, it can make 3% average monthly profit and still get decent number of subscribers.
Also your comparing first 3 months revenue is unreasonable.
For signal sellers, most subscribers come after 3 months because they want to see your record for some time.
For FTMO you have criteria as 10% drawdown and 300% annual profit .
For C2 you take criteria as 30% drawdown and 100% annual profit. Why you compare them with different criteria?
With 30% drawdown and 100% annual profit you make very small profit in c2, yet with the same criteria you have zero chance to have a funded FTMO account.
C2 subscribers do not care much about price than strategy quality.
Generally,if you have a good strategy, subscribers donât mind paying higher price.
And in that case, your lowering price doesnât affect number of subs so much.
But $1000 is too high and is prohibitive.
I guess the developer intentionally made it so high to avoid execution liquidity problem.
None were FX traders, so the platform seems to be geared towards stock & futures investors.
They all charged between $120-140
The top guy has 6.8K in subs and his share is 3.4K a month, the next highest was 2.9K & taking home 1.45K a month.
If you need a long history and drawdowns <10% to attract Collective2 subs then whatâs the point vs FTMO where you can start making >2K on 100K in <2 months? Collective2 is also costing you $40 or $90 a month in fees and taking 50% of your subscription revenue.
Personally I still donât think itâs worth it considering the open trade history issue and how long it will take to generate a decent amount of sub revenue, but there is no reason you couldnât do both.
CFTC is so worried about FX âregulationsâ that they are oblivious to all the Robinhood idiots buying stocks of bankrupt companies, and or buying on margin.
There is no such thing as â50% projected annual returnâ
You need to put in ANN return, put that as >50%, and >200 days, <10% drawdown, then you get none system.
Thatâs why I said, if your use same criteria as FTMO,( which is 300% annual return) you will break C2 record and make amount of money that none of C2 developers ever made.
And why you still use 50% annual return as criteria for C2, instead of FTMOâs 300%?
Not taking sides here, but FTMO does not require a 300% return. Yes, the challenge phase is 10% target for 30 days, which annualized is 213%. However, once funded, there are no profit targets. If you want to scale up 25% in capital every 4 months, the requirement is 10% over 4 months (avg 2.5%/ month) and 2 of the 4 months must be net positive.
I am in because this works for ME, but obviously is not for everyone. I only needed to make slight adjustments to be within their risk parameters and have full confidence that my system will yield the results to get me to 600K capital within 16 months. At that point, based on my ROI over he past 5 years, I will be earning 14 times what I earn now.
I did use the grid with >$40 sub price + >180 age + <10% drawdown then sorted the list by ann return high to low. I just wanted to see the best performers on collective2 that were new so I cut the list off <50%.
I get the underlying vibe that you think the FTMO target is an unrealistic/unfair target goal, but itâs really not a requirement for a >300% annual system to pass. You just need 10% in 1st 10-60 days (you get a free retake if you end 30 days with a positive balance) followed by another 5% in 10-30 days, then there are no target goals once funded.
I have a friend that is days away from passing and his system is no where near 300% a year.
Quite a few have strategically waited to take the test when they could hop on a really strong trending market with minimal corrections and passed relatively easy, others waited for a market environment (ex. increased volatility) when they know their system will perform above the norm and passed.
I completely agree. Although FTMO may be suitable for me, I shall strive to remain objective. I think that, in any case, it is important that we all post accurate information here. There have been many inaccurate and misleading posts recently, which is not good for the thread.
Can any of the experts here recommend me a broker where I could potentially trade individual stocks (AAPL, Google etc) as CFDs? Iâve only seen one in existence before and they were 100% bucketshop.
