Autoscalp owns 1200 Proprietary Algos for: eurodollar, oil and gold.
Autoscalp does NOT manage third party assets.
Production: our proprietary algo generator engine approximately manufactured 2.8 million different strategies and configurations, for a total of 33TB of coded algos. The top 1200 algos are being actively researched, dynamically optimized and updated when needed.
Autoscalp intellectual properties:
Autoscalp owns an algo generator, a pricing engine and a dedicated algo monitoring environment, many proprietary algos, strategies, a market micro-structure based pricing model, a proprietary data filtering process, a data stream filtering process analysis and a dedicated environment.
Autoscalp deposited a proprietary price feed and a proprietary pricing model.
A Patent Pending has already been filled [but rejected as "object can not be patented"] on two core modules.
Many algo generating processes have also been deposited as Copyrights through an Intellectual Property Firm.
ACDL is our Algo Cluster Deployment Language is an interpreter developed to improve human interaction with algos to promptly allow realtime reconfiguration in fast markets situations.
A Trade Secret has been requested for some core modules through an I.P. Law firm.
Our alpha seeking strategies: language independent, platform independent, broker independent are extremely proactive respect to market dynamics.
Our Artificial Intelligence module, based is the results of an international cooperation and is consisting of our proprietary algos and an undisclosed third party A.I. deep learning environment.
Our Think-tank scenarios, what-ifs and event analysis are independent from governments or banks stand points.
Our tools are designed for: Dark Pools, Government Plunge Protection Teams, Sovereign Funds, Commercial Banks, Electric Power Producion & Distribution Companies, Treasury Engines, Liquitidy Engines, Clearing Houses, Oil & Gas producing companies, Investment Banks, Hedge Funds, Wealth Management Companies, Asset Management Companies, Family Offices. Specifically avoiding retail sector by design.
Partnership is open for Institutionals only. Autoscalp is not looking for customers, see partnership page.
Reciprocal signing of Non Disclosure Agreement and Non Compete Agreement contracts are mandatory ahead of exploring any eventual Partnership Proposals.
A Business Associate Agreement will also be required at the very beginning of any eventual negotiation. We also protected our intellectual properties through a technology insurance method: Autoscalp has asked multiple sources to create independent value estimates of our know-how, expertise, price engine, algo pool and algo generating processes then insured them for their nominal value against intellectual property theft attempts. Such evaluations are basis for setting our stock-options pricing which are to be issued during a later step in the start-up phase.
Institutionals only can apply for Algo Demonstrations.
Steps for booking a Live Algo Demonstration:
We require any prospective partner to sign both NDA and NCA which include penals in case of disclosure.
Algo viewing is limited to the feed output as is compartimentalized at source.
Our proprietary algos are under continuous R&D and testing, so your Company will just be granted
a temporary access to view some of our algo feeds. Before inquiring see the Partnership page
which contains all guidelines about it, including requirements to qualify as prospective partners.
Accepted proposals are not disclosed as by NDA and NCA.
Latest declined proposals timeline and recent news:
2019 september 7: We received a co-partnership proposal coming from a company owning a well known order routing platform but We don't offer order matching/crossing services. [They failed to read our Partnership page properly].
2019 september 3: Autoscalp was asked to do an evaluation of a third party algo profitability and effectiveness.
Offer was declined since Autoscalp owns a specific technology to do reverse engineering of algos from reporting, thus doing any "third party algo evaluation" would easily create an involuntary conflict of interest since it would probably create a mimic algo (a clone) in the process.
2019 august 27: Autoscalp was asked to "relativize its contracts to the parity of purchasing power of the country in which the algos are run [aka adjust to bigmac index]... since a certain amount of USD used in France desn't have the same purchase power of same amount of dollars used in India".
Request was dismissed as was hiding an unilateral renegotiation attempt [no renegotiation after the handshake].
2019 august 1: Autoscalp was invited to join an international expert panel "to create an high frequency trading shock absorber tool to cope with an eventual euro exit ". As the Prospective Partner [allegedly a Plunge Protection Team belonging to an Eastern Europe Bank Consortium] stated wouldn't comply with Autoscalp Intellectual Property Rules, proposal was immediately dismissed.
2019 july 26: Autoscalp think-tank twitter account access was restored but all tweets , thousands, posted in 9 year activity were wiped by an unknown third party. Autoscalp then joined an existing Class Action, claims consisting in: free speech censoring, data theft and political discrimination, in order to obtain the relative damages.
2019 july 01: the demerging proposal "outsourcing reorganization" was rejected and dismissed as another disguised hostile takeover attempt.
2019 june 13: Autoscalp think-tank twitter account was locked for political reasons [link]
2019 june 02: Autoscalp Strategies is evaluating the outsourcing of some units to reorganize its structure.
2018 may 13: Autoscalp rejected the proposal for creating two co-partnership spin offs where one company would have owned I.P. of all the proprietary know-how while the other would have distributed them through licensing. Through a sting operation [faking interest to participate on the buyside of the same operation] our Business Counter-intelligence task force discovered that the real intent of the apparent "double spin-off proposal" was masking an hostile takeover attempt by a multi billion company operating in the Master Data Management Software sector.
Before applying for Partnership make sure your Company fits Partnership requirements.
Recently rejected Partnership requests:
Ashdod (IL), proposed as exclusive agent: exclusive is not available for IS cities.
Cadiz (SP), failed to comply with NDA.
Dallas (USA), proposed as exclusive agent: exclusive is not available for US cities.
Falkenstein (DE), unilaterally tried alter contract specs.
Jakarta (ID), proposed as exclusive agent: exclusive is already taken.
Paris (FR), proposed as partner: but same person resulted employee in a bank, posing as advisor in another.
Praetoria (ZA), proposed as partner: failed to comply with NDA.
Satwa (UAE), proposed as service co-hosting: failed to provide company owner data.
Our firewall against flawed proposals and intellectual property theft attempts.
As We had to defend Autoscalp I.P. since 2003 We have become proficient in spotting, signalling and exposing schemes to authorities and watchdogs. From exposing naive social engineering baits such as procurement outsourcing to foiling more sophisticated international industrial espionage attempts.
We soon found passive defense to be way too limited for our purposes, We now counter those malpractices from Countries allowing ACTIVE defense techniques for protecting intellectual properties, such as: counter-baiting, counter-deception, circular reporting fabrication , C.I., counter-scheming, intrusive business intelligence derailing, bogus prototyping, honeypotting, mockup planting, sandboxing... [the most effective ones being undisclosed for obvious reasons] .
To learn more about the many scams and schemes We encountered since 2003, look at the Expertise page which often speaks in detail about them, then at the Partnership page which has also become a sort of firewall with a decent success rate in filtering flawed proposals and scam attempts.
A few hints:
- Play the media drums: just publishing a scammer's scheme is often enough to get him desist from purpose.
- Lock scammers with penals: scammers rarely sign binding agreements (NDA and NCA) carrying heavy penals.
- Derail scammers with disinfo: give scammers a wise runaround path forcing them to expose their real intent.
- Let Cyber-intruders "win": they get paid as they find anything, let them find something on purpose.
Recently detected scams:
"Lipstick on a Pig" Automated Fund. See Expertise page [point 44: recipe 10].
What happens when someone tries to steal your ideas and floats them on an exchange ? An expected disaster.
Action taken: none. No stake in his drama: a typical Muppet's crash, just one of many.
Zurich via London via... "Modus operandi II scam".
An external intermediary and a bank employee, who even posed as manager, tried get us involved in a money triangulation scheme covertly operated by a Major Swiss Bank. The hidden purpose of the scheme was to find and exploit an expendable strawman (dummy) for an international money laundering scheme.
Action taken: our lawyers promptly filed a Report with both watchdogs: MROS - CFB (CH), MLRO - FCA (UK).
Lodon via Exotic places... "Modus operandi I scam".
We were contacted by an individual who posed as manager for an UK bank he was just employee of, his real job was that of an I.B. / promoter for a market maker in an Exotic country. He set up a defamatory campaign against us as his true intent was to force us to lower our price in order to propose us to another bank , competitor of the one he allagedly was manager of. When requested he failed to provide a mandate from either side and could not get the deal signed: the scheme collapsed exposing him and his accomplices.
Action taken: our lawyers informed both banks of the wrongdoing of that employee. A report to FCA (UK) was also filed.
Lodon via Exotic places..."flying shuttle" - bucket shop scam.
An Asset Manager running several funds on behalf of a foreign bank asked us if We could provide him our Algo feed.
We asked his trade record to check if our algo feed could integrate with his strategies. As he realized our level of competence was far above the average... started behaving elusive, rude and offensive. So, We used our Mimic Algo to counter-profile his Report and expose his decisional model based on his trade results. The Mimic Algo exposed heavy inconsistencies: too many easy profits were instead stopped at a loss. That created us the doubt He might be running a "flying shuttle": a bucket shop fraud hidden in running a syntethic fund whose positions keep bouncing between two fully visible Funds: the fraudster (posing as Asset Manager) can cash-in some profits indirectly taking the opposite side of some positions and wilfully close the deals when Customer Funds lose and his hidden Fund profits.
Given the high probabiliity that the guy is running a scheme, We declined his offer.
Action taken: our lawyers signalled the self-appointed "asset manager" (a bank employee) to his bank.
Lausanne-Geneva: "Modus operandi III scam".
A self-promoted Wealth Manager (an ordinary lawyer) tried persuade us he had prospect in a major bank
but as he kept postponing signature both on NDA and NCA We contacted the Bank He was allegedly
working with (or spending the name of) just to discover he got fired several years ago.
Action taken: our lawyers promptly filed a Report with local watchdog: MROS - CFB (CH)
Zug-London: latecomers and their ponzis: "Force Majeure scam in a Ponzi" redux:
as soon as FCA made Bitcoin illegal in UK... a rotation of dishonest bank employees and a few sly "Fund Managers" tried to convince us that they had a situation, a spectacular idea: help them convert Fund assets in Bitcoins or blockchain related stuff... probably just in time for the FCA sequester ... then they would have put up a sad "plausible deniability" show: blame the manager, blame the broker, blame the trader. Ultimately, as soon as force majeure clause were to be risen, they would have come up with a big smile and the real deal : "surprise! Muppets pay the bill !"
Action taken: none. Nothing new.
Worldwide: a list of companies who said "We don't need yours, we have better algos". See our Expertise page.
We tracked their performances after 5 years: probably their models weren't that good...
|-18.0B||[Company C00]||AUM lowered from||20B to 2B|
|-4.0B||[Company C01]||Losses exceeding||4B|
|-1.2B||[Company C02]||AUM passed from||2.0B to 0.8B|
|-1B||[Company C03]||Losses exceeding||1B|
|-250M||[Company C04]||Losses exceeding||250M|
|-200M||[Company C05]||Losses exceeding||200M|
|-120M||[Company C06]||AUM lowered from||200M to 80M|
|-80M||[Company C07]||Losses exceeding||80M|
|-30M||[Company C08]||Losses exceeding||30M|
Losses are in USD. The names of the companies above are disclosed to prospective partners only, after signing NDA.
Comment: bankruptcy is the typical outcome of "circular reporting", a deadly flaw not every CEO knows about.
Often the CEO support Staff, rather than doing a proper comparison among algos just runs a pro-forma one and make up their conclusions without a proper dataset as support. Staff people often act either in their own interest or on self-referential biased prejudices, thus in the long term end up hurting both stability and profitability of the company because as their CEO completely trusts them will never check their conclusions thus trusting their (forged) report.
Action taken: none. After 5 years most of those companies bankrupted.