Let's discuss.
My stance on this is quite simple. Anything that does not disrupt my life and I do not have to pay for I'm happy to do free. If people think things that disrupt my life or I have to pay for should be free to them at my expense, this is unreasonable. This has always been my stance. Will always be my stance and I've said from very early on I am willing to do the things I chose to do at my cost and extra would cost.
We've completed the body of work I said we'd do for free. It's taken 6 months of working every day - and we did do it all free. It's all posted publicly and openly. Nothing was put behind a pay-wall - I did not even stick it on a webpage with ads. This covers what I feel are my moral obligations to make me "Feel okay" if there's a crash and I do well.
We're into extras and have been into extras for a while. The extras were requested, they were not volunteered.
To do all the things people ask for and things I'd like to do takes about 4 hours a day of working time. Half a standard working week and we also do weekends. Very much falls under "Disruptive to life". If I was paying only low/no skilled VAs this would be about $10/hr costing $280 a month. Most of it is niche content which can not be done by no/low skilled VAs and costs more.
I'm willing to do half an hour a day for free every day and 1 - 2 hours to do longform pieces a couple/few times a week, I also don't mind paying for about 2 hours of VA time because it's making my life easier. This is enough to do one trade plan on one asset (With no contingency plans) and a few updates through the day.
It's not enough to do QA on request. Do specific analysis on requested assets not on our regular trading list. Create/organise training material. Do multiple assets trade plans or rounded trade plans. Do post-trade analysis of things that did not work out and lessons that can be taken from that. All of these are time heavy tasks. If they are not worth paying for, then the person doing them is not worth paying - and if that's the case it's not worth the person doing them (Because it is worth paying for insights into what someone proficient would be doing/thinking).
I'm neutral between these. If people do not think there's value in having these things done every day and the hours it takes to do them, as my Granny used to say, "That'd be no skin off my nose" - I'd be okay with that. Value of things is entirely subjective and if people think these things are not worth paying for that's okay. If people think these things are great and worth me paying for, that's not okay.
If people want to pay for things I'm going to be running it at no profit on my end anyway. I'll just allocate the cash flow in to the wage bill out and the amount that gets done will be tied to that. One of these sides needs to move. Either there needs to be cash flow or the hours of people working has to be reduced.
For me it is a lot easier to pull the string than push it. If things can not find some sort of equilibrium by way of a common agreement between us I'm not going to go into "Sales mode", I am just going to go into cost reduction mode. There'll be no hard feelings on my end. In my experience the things I've shown here can be very valuable, if I've not displayed the value of them it's a failure on my part rather than anyone else's. But if I can not show value and people do not perceive value then it does not justify the use of resources to make it happen.
It's up to you.
We'll do a vote. It'll be a bit of a skewed vote since there are people here who've decided I am wrong even if the market crashes and there are people here who I see saying things like, "This book was great, you should download the torrent. It really helped me make money" - AKA, selfish as fuck. Happy to extract the value of other's years of effort and not give them anything for it.
I don't really class either of these as valid votes (And I bet they do vote), but we'll do a vote anyway and see how it goes. I'm neutral on the outcome.
via reddit https://ift.tt/3FZWwXD
Comments
Post a Comment