I can't help but wonder what is worse. Virtually every EA has a hyped up landing page that makes outrageous claims of performance that the EA fails to live up to. Most of them wont even replicate the claimed performance on a back-test or a demo account let alone alone on a live account.
How many suckers end up out of pocket the $149.00 for the EA or whatever it was, plus another 1k or 2k from their live trading account? Don't forget the cost of a VPS and wire transfers etc too.
IMHO the bigger crime is the mass marketing of EA's that the developers/marketers know full well will not perform as claimed. I am not specifically referring to FAPT, although that was my personal experience after 4 months of running FAPT on a live funded account. FAPT was roughly a break-even exercise for me, which is better than some but certainly not as claimed on their website.
I have suggested this before, I would love to see the FPA really sort the chaff from the hay and do some live tests using real money. Why not fund a live account for an EA after it has had positive performance on demo for several months? Alternatively, & I would really love to see this - the purveyors of the EA could provide the funds for a live account. Not a nano account either with a paltry $100 bucks in it - a decent deposit. It would be outstanding advertising for any EA marketer willing to put their money where their mouth is. Surely not that big an ask either, after all this is what they would have their customers do.
It is necessary because Live EA performance is always far worse than Demo EA performance, so much so that some EA's are profitable on demo and not profitable on a live account. Especially true of scalpers.That´s not really necessary. Just go to "Performance Test" here in FPA and look at the EA´s which have been tested for more than 10 weeks (shorter tests don´t mean anything) and get aware of their poor performance in the long run.