Date/Time: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:05:04 +0000
Post From: The Story of IG Markets and Sierra Chart. Classic Breach of Contract
|User931283 - Posts: 43|
My reading/ opinion (strictly) is that SC in good faith stated the best way to interface for reliability and the future, and IG appeared to accept and agree to provide a FIX server, which seemed to "mislead" SC, or at least "not disclose" "in good faith" that they really would not expand from their API, nor provide the FIX server. Their interest in SC seemed mostly to bring instant clients rather than providing a better trading experience. Is that telling?
Does IG show ignorance of the strong demand and trend in professional trading toward speed, reliability, ease-of-use, robustness and maintainability of Sierra Charts, with SC's unmatched support, responsiveness to problems and openness to constant improvements in the platform itself?
Having used eSignal, TradeStation and leading brokers, I know what works-- Sierra Chart. NOTHING is faster, more modular, more capable, or more reliable. It has NEVER halted, never failed to run, and remained Fast while handling enormous real-time demands.
ANY even-casual survey of current stronger "Trader-brokers" and sophisticated exchanges like CQG shows THEIR commitment to Sierra Chart Leadership and acceptance by experienced traders.
That IG seems unaware of these aspects, not very intersted in a leading state-of-the-art platform, and seems unconcerned about the future direction of connectiions for reliability/maintainability-- may be telling. Does IG test platforms and plan for future connection protocols, like AMP/CQG do?
The future of protocols matters.
Wouldn't a company with smart management LOVE to have a firm like SC help get the best modern connections going for testing?
Ultimately, only traders with the TOOLS like SC and solid data connections/feeds, to make money--- will prove out who wins in the long run.
Every aspect of Sierra Chart screams fine product, company, support, people and management.
And IG? What?