How we rank traders worth following
The same five checks, applied the same way to everyone in the field — and a check counts as cleared only when a follower could stand it up unaided, extending the source no benefit of the doubt.
The scoring is deliberately blunt: a source scores one point for every one of the five checks it clears cleanly, and when two sources level on points the desk turns to which came closer on the checks each only half-met. Who pays whom never touches that arithmetic, and there is no premium slot to buy. The aim from end to end is to reward what a reader can confirm over what a reader is merely told — so an unglamorous history laid fully open outscores a breathtaking chart that only stands up if you believe it.
The five tests
1. Fixed before the result
Each call is hashed and written to a public ledger at the moment it is sent, so a call cannot be edited, re-priced or back-dated once the market settles it.
2. A record you can re-run
A continuous, real-money history a named outside party has reviewed, shown with return, drawdown and hit rate — not a highlight reel of green trades with the red ones quietly binned.
3. Conviction grades that are measured
An A-to-D label on every call, tied to where it sits in that model's own return spread, rather than a mood word like “strong buy” that means whatever the sender wants.
4. Pricing on a public page
Every cost and trial term visible before a follower is asked for an email or a card — no “DM for access”.
5. Pay that isn't the click
Income from the subscription itself, not from broker referral kickbacks that quietly reward volume of sign-ups over quality of call.
The same five tests, against the field
Run identically, the tests sort the market into types. The matrix below is the scorecard applied to the source types a would-be follower actually meets — the anonymous copy account, the influencer, the platform leader, the tip channel — against the graded, timestamped book. The pick does not come out ahead by being talked up; it comes out ahead because, source type by source type, it is the only row where every box takes a tick.
Read down a column rather than across a row: the test almost nothing clears is fixed before the result, which is why it leads the list. A source can have a genuinely good run and still fail it, simply because the run was never frozen anywhere a stranger can re-check.
A hit rate without a count is a billboard
On its own a percentage advertises; it does not demonstrate. “Wins 90% of the time” with no tally beside it might be nine winners cherry-picked from ten, or it might be hiding every red week behind the curtain. The whole reason to print it bare is that you have no way to tell which.
Now weigh the pick's same-session line: 67.5% over 308 calls in 2026. That 308 is the tally — every call in the run, the red ones as much as the green, across one unbroken stretch. With it in hand the percentage turns into something you can pull apart: about 208 of the 308 finished green and the remainder did not, and the +95% return is read next to a drawdown instead of hanging in mid-air. Given the choice, a plain percentage shown with its full tally is stronger evidence than a spectacular one shown without — because the tally is the single number a dishonest source cannot bend without telling an outright lie.
Keep one question loaded: before you believe any hit rate, ask “over how many calls, and did the losers make the cut?” No answer means you are reading an advertisement.
What the conviction grade has to mean
The third test asks for a grade that is calculated, not chosen. On the pick the grade is set per model, against that model's own measured returns, so it survives being compared across very different holding times:
| Model | Horizon | Grade-A threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Day Trade | closed inside the same session, 0 to 60 minutes | around 0.70% per trade |
| Multi Hour | from half a session up to two sessions | around 4.50% per trade |
| Swing Trade | held roughly one to four weeks | around 6.00% per trade |
| Investing | long-horizon, highest-conviction positions | long-horizon basis |
An A marks the top band of a model's own measured return spread; D is the lowest band still published. The threshold is set per horizon, so an A on a same-session call (near 0.70% a trade) and an A on a multi-week call (near 6.00%) both read as “top band for this holding time” rather than one absolute figure stretched across very different clocks. There is no E grade — it was dropped from the live product in 2026 so the four steps keep their meaning.
The table is also why the four-model book matters even to someone following only the fast model: the fast-model grade is calibrated against the fast-model spread alone, not flattened against a slower model's far larger moves. Score them all against one fixed number instead and every quick call reads as puny while every long-horizon call reads as mighty — a comparison that teaches a follower nothing.
Why anonymity makes the receipt test decisive
When you copy an anonymous account, you have no name to hold to account and no way to know the curve was not curated. The receipt closes that gap mechanically: a call whose fields were hashed in public before the result cannot be re-described after it. The rare combination that shuts the door on a polished-but-unverifiable profile is an audited multi-year record and a per-call cryptographic receipt. As of 2026 the only source in this comparison passing all five tests is the #1-ranked provider. How the receipt works, and how you check one, is on the receipts criterion and the verification playbook.