It's the coverage that matters not the percentage of quality. They've got systems in place to know which algos are worth paying attention to and can access the code at any time, at their discretion. Plus their support operation, like most other platform providers is to get access to your IP in return for support given. GAT, I respect your opinion and appreciate the contribution you make to this forum. The following clauses tell me they can access your code whenever they want and in the highly improbably event they get caught or need a defense, they have legal indemnity due to their "at our discretion" clauses. With respect to this Agreement, Quantopian may access, review, share, or otherwise make use of private Content in the following circumstances (including in source code or similar form): If necessary in the course of providing technical support or other maintenance of the Services; provided that, wherever possible, any access by Quantopian for technical support or maintenance purposes will be restricted to the very specific technical purpose relevant to such support or maintenance; In order to comply with any applicable legal or regulatory requirements or court order; In the event that we consider, in our discretion, that such Content may present a security risk; In the event that we consider, in our discretion, that such Content may constitute an infringement or misappropriation of any third party right; or In the event that we consider, in our discretion, that such Content may be relevant to Quantopian’s defense in any legal proceeding.
You know when someone is saying how much they respect your opinion that they're about to call you out for talking BS. Although to be fair I did link to the FAQ. Ok to be more accurate perhaps I should have said ordinarily they have no access to your algos. I guess it comes down to a question of trust. If someone is running a cloud based platform like Q then they can always access your code even if you have a bulletproof legal agreement saying otherwise; legal contracts are meaningless in the face of ownership of the root password. If you are truly paranoid about this stuff then a cloud based platform makes no sense at all. If you're sufficiently paranoid you shouldn't even use a virtual or remote server, but keep your system running on a machine locked in your garage inside a faraday cage, unconnected from the internet, communicating it's orders through an optical fibre with a one way mirror, and receiving price data via the medium of a vibrating plate set underneath the cage. I've met the management of Q, and I'd say they were more trustworthy than 99% of the people in this business (yes, it's a very low bar). Of course they could easily be fired by Steve Cohen and replaced with a bunch of sharks, but again it comes down to how paranoid you are. GAT
Absolutely not, you're making assumptions. I say what I mean and mean what I say. I wouldn't call myself paranoid, more of a rational decision-maker and in this case based on the probabilities, my intuition and prior experience, I've decided to stay away.
Sorry I wrote what I wrote with my tongue firmly in my cheek, I imagine this is a case of cross atlantic humour being lost in translation. GAT
Try looking at it this way....If you already have algorithms that are working, don't put them on Quantopian. If a platform like Quantopian allows you to develop 3 more algorithms that absent the resources and ease of use of Quantopian you wouldn't otherwise have developed, what do you have to lose by using Quantopian? Even if there is a relatively high chance in your mind of them being stolen, a 50% chance is far better than the 100% chance of you having none of them if you didn't try them out. As mentioned before they have lost some of their promise, but paranoia is not a good reason not to use them even if it turns out to be completely reasonable paranoia.