Rough Notes for Planning the Meetup (Part 2)

Today concludes publication of some rough draft notes I had to complement this blog mini-series.

As I said last time, this may or may not be redundant information. More than anything else, I am trying to get more organized by clearing out my “drafts” folder.

———————————-

One step down from a qualifying interview would be to limit group openings. People sometimes have a fear of missing out. I could say “only 10 spots available.” I think this would likely attract people with a higher level of commitment, but my gut says it wouldn’t be as effective as a qualifying interview (assuming accuracy of screening).

What I don’t want to do is make the admissions criteria so stringent that nobody joins. I think this is also why I need to determine exactly what the group will focus on (i.e. collaborative research/programming/testing or teaching/trader literacy).

If the fees are mainly to establish accountability, then I could make them due up front and progressively refundable. Maybe the first meeting is free to explain objectives, future plans, and to collect money for those interested. I could then issue refunds at every meeting attended or to those who attend all meetings. I could also consider offering a discount to advanced traders with more to contribute.

One final possibility would be to advertise a pay it forward intent to discuss/teach something about which I am passionate rather than selling anything for a profit. This begs the question of if/when should education be free?

I feel strongly that unlike education in other domains, compensation should be given for teaching someone how to make money directly. Aside from how to operationally define “directly,” a big question mark surrounds the material itself. No guarantees can be made, and trading instructors are always potential charlatans presenting bogus information. Who should decide (and how) up front whether someone with something to teach is pure? That is a practical impossibility.

The caveat to my strong feeling, then, is justification because I know myself to be honest. One can never know that about anyone else. I may not even know that for myself because extraordinary future circumstances (Black Swans) can always arise.

Maybe this is why House says “everybody lies.”

The concept of abundance seems to be relevant here. The laws of abundance say “I can give to as many people within my reach; there is enough for everyone.” I’m not sure I buy into this. The likelihood that I and any retail investors with whom I ever associate will be enough to move the needle of the markets is supposedly slim. If word spreads, enough people learn, and everyone starts trading a particular way, though, then could Edge could be offset? There is no right answer.

Maybe I have a block with regard to a willingness to give. Heck, if organizations like TT* are out there disseminating free information to tens upon thousands of viewers then am I really worried about sharing what I know? I would have to believe in getting something out of it myself, too.

Who said I need to be the gatekeeper? Or is it me just trying to capitalize on the value of what I know (which I believe could be significant)?

I really don’t know.

* — Plenty of people are skeptical about TT teachings, however, which renders this comparison moot.