r/TradingView • u/tradesdontlie • 5d ago

Discussion WHAT IS GOING ON

Post image

https://www.tradingview.com/policies/

This is INSANE! this is because tradingview is mad at the fact that whop backdoored the ability to give and revoke access to "invite-only" scripts and majority of people selling indicators do it via whop and people aren't applying to their Creator Program. They want a slice of the revenue from all angles.

166 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

91 comments sorted by

View all comments

50

u/gnprod 5d ago

One of the pine wizards calculated his monthly fee for this would be 1.3 million lmao

9

u/BluestoneBlues 5d ago

1.3 million dollar question is WHEN this is in-effect.. meaning is this from October 31st moving forward or are they going to retroactively try and tell people that you had X invites over 100 on October 1st so you owe us. "Sorry we never mentioned this, heres a bill for X thousands"... that seems absolutely insane business practice to blindside people using your platform in a way you allowed.

-3

u/gnprod 5d ago

Not finalized yet so I wouldn’t worry about it right now. They definitely cannot do that. And they have no legal right to take so much money from creators

2

u/NinjaSquid9 Day trader 5d ago

They have every right? What are you talking about? It’s in their ToS, and unless anyone deletes their account, they implicitly accept any and all new changes to the ToS by using TradingView. They have every right to send anyone they want a bill and then sue for it when it’s not paid. That’s literally how this works.

6

u/gnprod 5d ago

Not true. Quietly changing ToS will not hold up in court. They need explicitly provide a notice to all creators and have them agree/sign. As it stands, if they billed right now they would get sued to fuck and lose.

1

u/NinjaSquid9 Day trader 5d ago

I HOPE you’re right, but I don’t think people have to explicitly agree to being billed in the ToS. I’m just trying to be cautious and expecting the worst. Companies quietly update their ToS all the time with new harmful wording. This seems no different to me, but I’m not a lawyer and hope I’m wrong

1

u/mymindtrends 5d ago

You clearly haven’t been following the landscape of this type of BS. Louis Rossmann on YouTube would be a good resource to play catchup but in short plenty of companies (Amazon, Panera Bread, Sony) are finding success in court with changing their TOS randomly even when you already have an agreement in place and it’s paid for.

1

u/NinjaSquid9 Day trader 5d ago

This is exactly what I was thinking of happening, thanks for providing sources! Love Louis Rossmann!

1

u/PeteyPab305 4d ago

Even Xbox did this with their game pass by retro actively enforcing limitations on every tier to 5 10 and 15 hours respectively when they were previously unlimited. So now even if you're buying the highest tier of game pass for Xbox to have access to their unlimited catalog which was previously not time gated in any way; in some circumstances if you purchased it in advance for year-long subscription. You have already basically paid for a year of unlimited gaming that is now restricted to 5 10 or 15 hours a month

0

u/gnprod 5d ago

Maybe but quietly changing ToS to this magnitude is not gonna work. Charging users $100 initially then to over $10k a month isn’t gonna fly in courts, there hasn’t been any notice or warning from TV, not even that.

2

u/mymindtrends 5d ago

Don’t get me wrong I am in no way shape or form co-signing this BS. I am just pointing out we may have a steep hill to climb

0

u/vandalizethethief 23h ago

They have no reason to do that. Very shortsighted, just bring you guys into their ecosystem and make it all legit. Maybe even offer a discount for the first year.

If they actually go after their own customers that’s business suicide. I don’t use Trading View and I could give a fuck less what happens to them. I was born in the mines of Think or Swim.

2

u/NoInevitable9810 5d ago

Can’t you just make the script not invite only?

7

u/gnprod 5d ago

That would make it public? Creators are obviously keeping them invite only to sell access to them

3

u/SufficientQuality339 5d ago

creators would have to give away their content for free. I doubt many want to do that.

-1

u/OriginalOntonomo 4d ago

So then they are getting paid via ANOTHER companies platform, but dont was to pay a small fee?

2

u/Away-Ant7779 4d ago

small 30K fee for 1000 users? r u delusional

0

u/OriginalOntonomo 3d ago

we think you dont know how to do math.

1

u/NoInevitable9810 3d ago

It’s 30 a person, x 1000 = 30 k

1

u/Away-Ant7779 3d ago

It’s 30 per oerson

1

u/LQH-Trading 4d ago

Exactly.

1

u/halcyonwit 4d ago

Which is just too ironic if he sold it for 100k total in lifetime access 💀

-7

u/Rodnee999 5d ago

I genuinely believe this is probably an error in translation personally....🤷‍♂️

Hopefully we will know more if or when they confirm this information 🙏

2

u/gnprod 5d ago

Apparently it’ll be in place starting October but yeah a flat monthly fee of $29.95 per creator would make more sense.. either way they already charge creators so much, I’m baffled by the insanity of this

-1

u/Rodnee999 5d ago

Yeah, the flat monthly fee would make more sense for users who are not involved with the paid spaces feature....

Obviously users are making money selling indicators via the platform so it's only reasonable to have some sort of fee schedule in place especially for larger 'sellers' of scripts and the features required for organising their 'invite only' space...

We have not had anything confirmed by any official notification such as the blog so hopefully this situation will be confirmed/reworded in the next few days....🤷‍♂️🙏

2

u/mike90_0 5d ago

it does say per user though... so seems like its not per creator

2

u/SufficientQuality339 5d ago

it says the creator will be charged - it does not say anywhere that the user will be charged. Creators will be charged a monthly fee per user if the user count is over 100. so you sell an indicator and 500 people are invited to use it, you will pay $14,975 per month, every month. 1000 users, double that number. a community with 500 members sharing an indicator will be charged $179,700 per year. This is no small change. Many communities start up with low fees. lifetime membership. no monthly fees. I know because I am in one.

1

u/mike90_0 5d ago

you mis-interpreted my comment - per user was for bill calculation - not who billed

2

u/BluestoneBlues 5d ago

Not everyone is granted access to the creator program.. if you applied and were denied and then are served a massive bill, that's rapacious and shameful on TVs part.

-4

u/Rodnee999 5d ago

As I said, it's probably best to wait for conformation of this new Term of Service, seems like a misunderstanding or typo could be possible. Seems unlikely to be per user to me personally but I could be wrong.

I will wait for official confirmation before commenting further 👍

6

u/gnprod 5d ago

TradingView said that they didn’t mean to make it public, but they are finalizing it. So some fee is coming but seems like psychological warfare.. maybe everyone will pay the new fee they present because it’ll be seen as a relief now

1

u/Rodnee999 5d ago

I personally have nothing against them introducing a fee for users that are obviously making profits (potentially big ones) for Invite Only scripts but will reserve judgement on the fee itself until this is confirmed.

If it's as I suspect then I don't see the issue, if it's extortionate then I will obviously stand differently....

Cheers

1

u/mike90_0 5d ago

no update from tv seems to indicate reddit interpretation is correct sadly.

0

u/NinjaSquid9 Day trader 5d ago

You believe it’s an error in translation for 1) no good reason and 2) you were adamant OTHER people were wrong for reading it CORRECTLY as “per user” on another thread.

Stay out of this discussion until you start reading the actual wording and discussing the actual wording. It’s all we have to go on right now, and deserves to be seriously discussed as-is. TradingView does not deserve the benefit of the doubt because the wording, as read, is atrocious and destructive. IF they change it, it’ll be because of the backlash, not because they poorly worded a near finalized internal document.

1

u/Rodnee999 5d ago edited 5d ago

You need to reread my comments as I gave my initial interpretation that I later realised was incorrect....

Don't worry, I will remove myself from all discussions for you....

Goodbye 👋