Topic: Financial Risk Analytics-Subscription Service - page 7. (Read 130821 times)

The Coin

That is not to say I wouldn't jump around, there were 2-3 off and on miserly months where I decided not to resubscribe (wish I didn't) to cypherdoc. Still consider myself a very immature player in the market so it helps to have an ear everywhere, which is why at this moment in time I'm subscribed to all 3. I wouldn't recommend going from one to another, but if you wanted to, then do so concurrently. If I wanted to see what s3502 wanted to say for example, I would not recommend closing off your private subscription to the other just yet, but keep the one you had that way you can judge things more fairly as you see how different analyzers interpret the same events and price movements.  

And in the mean time, just osmose as much as you can from them! Being 21, they all unequivocally have more experience than I do and that's enough in and of itself for me to trust them over me right now! The goal is to (one day) get to the same level the reason why I favor this newsletter is because far more than the others, cypher taught me the majority of what I know about this kind of stuff (and more impprtantly, how to look at this kind of stuff) and was good at doing that.

I appreciate your opinion.

If I had to pick between one of the current offers available here at bitcointalk, it'd be the good doc's newsletter that I'd subscribe to, every single time. Like I said, they all offer their own perks but I value cypherdoc's service the most. His was the first one I subscribed to back in October.  If you have an intermediate timeline (least stressful) then I recommend it thoroughly.

Hello everyone. I'm new here. Sorry for not reading  every post in this thread. (My native language is not English). I wonder if people are happy with cypherdoc forecasts. Are their really helpful advice?  should I subscribe to this service?
Thank you very much. I love you all.

It keeps coming up in my list of threads that I have posted in. Can't take it off the list. Of course, that concerns forum software, not this thread.

Update

S3052,

it's true that the way i handle this thread is completely different than the way you handle your thread.

you use yours to advertise and actively promote market discussion, which is also a way to advertise, with those who wish to do so.  i purposely shut off all those types of activities b/c i wanted my content to be exclusive to my subs.

this thread is purely a notification system.

The "content" is a notification to subscribers that an update has been sent.  Email is not always reliable and having a second channel of notification is beneficial.  You do the same thing with your thread, you just send less updates.  How hard is it to ignore a thread you know doesn't apply to you?  Other people find it useful, and if I were still a cyperdoc subscriber I would be pissed about the new policy.  You are acting like a fucking child.

at times, in the past, i might send out anywhere from 4-7 or so short updates to subs with bumps.  i've throttled that back to once per day bumps, even with the multiple updates, at the instruction of BadBear.  you're saying that that's still too much?

understood.

but i'm assuming most of that foundational understanding you're referring to is fundamental.  i don't know how to keep on repeating all that stuff all the time for new subs.  i've written tomes on that within the threads which is readily available and have been wrongly assuming new subs have accessed that.  

as you know, i like keeping it short, sweet, and conversational. that's how it's become more manageable for me. that has it's advantages as well.

I will try to find a solution with cypherdoc and asked him to have a call with me. Because you are right, this daily bumping creates awareness for new potential customers (even if some people including me hate it as it woes not add value). Hence, it would be good to find an agreement to ideally limit posts that have no real content.

Yes! Nothing should be more important than the utmost priority for your job, you have a primary career that demands that. What I mean to say, I've been subscribed for long enough to follow everything you publish, but I suppose if someone new wanted to join they'd likely be turned off without the same foundational understanding you were more likely to pass off when I was first subscribed in October..I just talked to a person that thought so is all.

I'd live to have a call with you to talk this 1on1 with you
I'd also like to maintain a friendly relationship with you.
I am available every evening from Fri-Sun this weekend. Just let me know when you have 30 minutes.

arghhh.  what a waste of time this is turning out to be.  

folks, right up until July 10, i was minding my own business not having interacted with S3052 at all in any negative way.  then, i get a pm from BadBear saying my thread bumps were going to be limited to once per day.  naturally, i asked why.  he said "someone" had complained.  i asked who.  he said he wouldn't tell me.  well, it was S3052.  ok fine.  i complied even though i know of at least one of my subs complained about the new restriction to BadBear.  

then on July 19, S3052 enters my thread and says this:

"I must say that I find it unfair practice to bump that thread so frequently. If intended or not, it provides an advantage to others, including me. I have refrained from doing that regularly, but we only have two choices:

Get a moderator to intervene with cypher docs practice or if not, we will likely see all analysts bumping their threads more and more.

I don't want that and I also don't think we should ask people to delete all their posts just to avoid this issue. This is just my honest pov."

my question to S3052 is why didn't he admit he'd already complained to a moderator, at least 9d or more prior?  if he'd had taken the time to notice, i had already been limiting my bumps to once a day since July 10 so at that point his perception of the problem was moot.  i actually understand how the bumping might irritate him, which is why i immediately complied and did not make a stink of it.


S3052, ppl want me to cover Bitcoin.  they've specifically asked me to cover Bitcoin.  i'm sorry you got the impression that i would never, ever cover Bitcoin.  this really shouldn't be that big a problem for you to carry out such "highly competitive" actions against me.  the marketplace is plenty big enough and we both aren't suffering from the competition.  at least i know i'm not.


pray tell, what is it specifically in that Skype conversation is it that you think you revealed to me that was critical to getting my letter get off the ground?  i specifically want an answer to this.  you make it sound like you revealed some sort of proprietary info to me that i stole.  everything about my letter, from the OP, to the structure of the updates, to this thread, and it's price is totally different from how you do yours.  my recollection of that conversation is that i wanted your perspective on what it was like to deal in a BTC only business and the risks involved in that.  certainly i valued your opinion and it was helpful.  in fact, i thought we had hit it off from a friendly standpoint and never thought you'd take my subsequent inclusion of Bitcoin services in my letter so negatively.  and mind you, i never made any promises or made an agreement with you that i wouldn't include Bitcoin.  in fact, during that Skype conversation you offered to bring me into the umbrella of your newsletter as a stock and bond analyst.  i thought that was very generous and nice.  most of the conversation revolved around how we might accomplish that.

since our original Skype conversation, at least twice and maybe 3x, you have offered to join forces with me again in a combined newsletter.  the most recent one being around Dec 2012 iirc.  those overtures are totally inconsistent with what i'm getting here which confuses me.  the reason i haven't accepted is that, and here is where it pains me to say this, i perceive an insecurity in you.  by that i mean that everytime i've mentioned some significant event that happened in the marketplace during our three Skype conversations, you've had to jump in and say "i called that".  and this is in front of Eric, too.  i see it in your thread as well.  statements like "as predicted" or "as called".  you never mention any of the misses.  you do miss calls don't you?  it's unnecessary and imo gives the impression of insecurity or a desire to one up others.  i see it in the title of your thread "#1 Most Popular".  waveaddict complained to you about this as have i yet you continue to use it.  how can you prove this and what objective measures do you use?  even in the post here that i'm responding to, you end it by making this declaration of "we want to keep extending our clear market leadership as most followed service".  what proof do you have?  is this misleading and shameless advertising?

in this thread, i don't do that even when i'm right back when i was bumping.  i'll be the first to admit that i am probably the most sensitive to how you are acting and perhaps biased in my observations, so take this with a grain of salt and others can make their own judgments.  but it does bother me.

as for the 2.5 to 1.0 BTC thing.  everyone should note that i never told S3052 this directly.  i did tell Eric, his partner/biller, at the conference that the plan back in May was to wind the letter down by the end of year.  i find it to be a tremendous amount of work and i do it more out of passion than a need.  sure enough, maintaining the cost @ 2.5 was too high and subscribership was dwindling.  the mistake i made was accepting certain subs that wanted to pay out for an entire year into 2014 or until the end of this year which they actually did.  so i was faced with putting all this work into a letter that would be subscribed to by a tiny number of dedicated subs who didn't care about the price of 2.5 BTC/mo.  instead of putting all that work in for just a few, i decided just last month to lower the price to attract more subs to make it worth my time and allow me to spread my insight.  it's worked and i'm back to a nice stable of subs that value my work and make it worth the time i put into it.  and yes, i immediately refunded the guy who paid 2.5/mo to the end of this year.  i've compensated by lowering the pressure on myself to publish every day, hence Vokain's comment on decreased quality.  @Vokain: if you'll notice if you look carefully, i'm trying to publish when there is something significant to say, not just multiple times daily b/c that was what i was doing in the past.  this takes the pressure off and makes it more pleasurable.  you of all ppl, know just how busy i am.  also as a result of the new pricing @ 1BTC/mo, i now have someone who prepaid a year out to July 2014 so it looks like i'm not going anywhere.

S3052, i think you are being way too harsh with this.  up until one month, i still considered you my friend and a fully competent and ethical competitor.  i still think we have a chance to re-establish that connection we once had.  but it is totally up to you to stop these underhanded techniques to compete.

honestly the 1BTC/mo thing might've been because of me. I asked him to lower his prices a bit if I would be subscribed for the rest of 2013, at least for me, as a starving student :p he lowered it across the board for everyone to be fair I imagine. He also extended his sub until at least early 2014 perhaps because 1+ of his subbers value him for various reasons and requested him to keep going via prepayment. I think that's a serious testament to his value.

i don't think you can say doing things that make decent business sense such as covering bitcoin and changing a price is selfish and capitalistic (in the derogatory sense at least). The Doc's a good guy, he's not out to poach your customers clearly. Why can't you see helping out cypher with the skype conversation as helping out another guy that is actively helping the Bitcoin community in his own way? Because clearly, that's what has happened thus far.

And S3052, you got me and smoothie as customers (at one point or another at least), I'd say business has been fair, no?

Thanks for those questions. They are absolutely valid :



1) on the timing of talking about this: i have seen cypherdoc changing his position multiple times: first he tells me 1.5 years ago he wants to cover other markets ex bitcoin . Second he starts covering bitcoins some months later . Third he says about 3-6 months ago that he will never change his 2.5 BTC per month pricing even if he loses all subscribers as it is only his hobby . Fourth some weeks ago he drops his price which shows that he changed his mind and gets into the competitive position again. It is because of that recent development that I am also stepping up competitiveness.

2) on the phone conversation: no one can prove what was said and like you said it is a great learning for me. I was too naive believing into what he said holds true. Believe me I am not that stupid. If I had the perception that he would start doing a paid bitcoin analysis service like me I would never have agreed to talk with h on the phone.
Anyway I am not fearing competition as we at DCR continue to serve our clients in the best way we can and we want to keep extending our clear market leadership as most followed service.

Anyway, as I said it is my fault but I am still disappointed about cypherdocs practices . The world is dishonest and money / capitalism rules everything - very unfortunately.
On the positive side, bitcoin P2P system is honest and that is why I continue to support it. I love bitcoin.

Perhaps the exact same thing that happened in this thread (the misunderstanding) was the same in your 60-90 minute Skype call. Even if there was a verbal agreement I still don't see how that is in anyway binding nor outside of the free-market system where businesses/competition thrive based on their merits. The weak/incompetent get eaten and put out of business and the smart/intelligent thrive.

If what you claim did happen concerning Cypher saying he would not cover bitcoin in his newletter, why did you wait about a year and a half to mention it publicly? This question begs to be answered if you so choose to. No pressure.

In the end talk is cheap. Actions speak louder. Simple truth in the world we live in.

In no way am I taking sides, just merely giving my view on the "truth" and "facts".

To clarify as there is a misunderstanding :

1) he did not copy any of the content of the analysis
2) what happened is that he asked me to explain in depth how to set up a subscription model and process. We had  a 60-90 minutes Skype call where he asked all questions about it and i answered them in good faith since I (wrongly ) assumed that he won't start to cover bitcoin
My mistake.