This makes no sense. How can you sustain a 75-90% return just by guessing that the price will go one way or another? If you guess it goes up and the price goes up only by .1% your still right, but are going to get a 75% return? The money come from the liquidity, thus detracting from the whole network value. So if people do guess right, the network is worth less even tho your personal value went up. So if you achieve your goal(making smarter traders), then you company will be worthless.
If people do guess wrong, then they lose everything nd so if your company succeeds then majority of users have lost money.
Your page states that a person needs a 57% correct guess rate (minimum) to make profit, due to the 2% fee on every trade(both entry and exit).
And your trading robot will advise them if they make a mistake? The same robot that controls the price points, trade access, and the liquidity pool? It sounds like you replaced the brokers with an automated version.
All in all, I feel you make this sound like it's a win win for all whIle also sayin that the majority will lose.
And yes the name makes no sense. I'm not sure what language you translated from but something is not right here. Just my 2 cents.
Hello,
Thanks for your questions, please see our responses below in bold.
> "This makes no sense. How can you sustain a 75-90% return just by guessing that the price will go one way or another? If you guess it goes up and the price goes up only by .1% your still right, but are going to get a 75% return? The money come from the liquidity, thus detracting from the whole network value. So if people do guess right, the network is worth less even tho your personal value went up. So if you achieve your goal(making smarter traders), then you company will be worthless.
Saddko above hit the nail on the head! Trading is a zero-sum-game. One traders wins are anothers losses. No one is re-inventing the wheel in SPECTRE. We are not a hedge fund telling traders if they invest, our platform will make them money. What we are doing is removing the broker out of the picture that intervenes disallowing traders to have a fair battleground against the wider market (i.e even stand a chance of making some profit). In our case, the broker is replaced by a decentralised liquidity pool that acts as counter party to most trades (where our algorithm does not match one trade against another traders). Out of 10 traders, when provided with a fair battleground, around 6-7 lose money because they cannot beat the market (Oanda, the worlds largest FX brokers latest quarterly data supports this fact and the fact that its a billion dollar company lends support to the fact that SPECTREs liquidity pool will grow substantially as well, since were basically a decentralised Oanda but multi-asset-class).
In order to beat the market in digital options, you need to generate a win rate of around 57-58% as payouts upon wins are 75-80% on average. Those who invest the time and gain experience and are talented can do so and sustain win rates above this hurdle rate thereby generating capital growth over time. These traders will be rewarded from the liquidity pool and yes the pool shrinks after these payouts. However the masses cannot beat the market as data from millions and millions of trades over years shows. This means there is sustained liquidity pool growth over time of which a big portion is paid out to token holders as dividends. Network value on aggregate, ergo, increases.
Please follow this closely: Both SPECTRE and token holders receive revenues/dividends when traders trade; whether they lose or win is irrelevant. We are a technology platform that charges the liquidity pool a transaction fee. The networks value is worthless if all traders win in the long run which is practically impossible. Statistics wont change just because we obviate the broker. You are talking about tail end of the distribution events that have <.0000001% probability of happening. Sure, there are periods a few hours or days where the liquidity pool may be stagnant or decline but over time growth is going to continue upward, thereby increasing the networks value. And yes, if a trader loses by incorrectly predicting the direction of the market, they lose their capital investment for *that* trade, nothing more. Its not like leveraged trading where you lose more than the amount invested. We have no trading robots, not sure where you gathered that from.> And your trading robot will advise them if they make a mistake? The same robot that controls the price points, trade access, and the liquidity pool? It sounds like you replaced the brokers with an automated version.
This is inaccurate on many fronts. Firstly, the smart contracts that govern trade entry, exit and outcomes are oraclized. They are different from onboard SPECTRE AI that learns how the trader trades and gives them soft-warnings protecting them from destroying their accounts or allowing amygdala hijacks to overtake their rational trading processes in their brain (you can look up the science of lizard brain trading and the destructive impact of cortisol during fight or flight responses during high-stress situations such as trading).
Our tools do not trade for traders, they just make them avoid easy pitfalls and instant account destruction; something traditional brokerages facilitate as they want to fleece clients immediately. > And yes the name makes no sense. I'm not sure what language you translated from but something is not right here. Just my 2 cents."
The name is an acronym as for Speculative Tokenised Trading Exchange. 'SPEC'ulative 'T'okenised 'Tr'ading 'E'xchange. We understand you would not understand it, partially because as per your signature you are a promoter of 'spectrecoin' a completely unassociated project with a similar name, but we assure you significant due diligence has gone into this name many months ago and we will be posting in the coming week a legal document for your perusal.