I have no doubt that many traders are successful with strategies based on a single TF, but I also know that trend following strategies are an interesting way to get a “safer methodology” or to “maximize” our chances to get profitable strategies in the long term. And one of the best ways to follow the trend is to get a MTF convergence. Isn’t it? There may be a lot of traders who, as you say Nicolas, don’t want to annoy themselves with this layer of additional complexity (or also ignore it) and prefer to program strategies by using “rules of three” to define hypothetical periods even if this give them approximate data as you said here. And they may don’t have the need and the time to speak about these strategies and prefer to exchange about strategies under development…
My questions are:
1. If somebody doesn’t have any profitable strategies in its strategies portfolio, would it not be wise to prospect for a trend following strategy based on MTF (whether with this future feature or through “rules of three”) rather than looking at single TF strategies?
2. This may seems like a very basic question, but why in automated trading it seems there aren’t strategies that are know to all? In manual trading, it is obvious that various traders psychologies cannot make this or that strategy emerge above all others. But in automated trading (and with the absence of psychological factor) only few strategies must be used by many traders. Isn’t it?
3. You said you “managed to educate the coders on the dangers of curve fitting and especially thanks to the WFA” and “people discover that their OOS optimization results are bad”. I am sorry but I don’t understand what “curve fiitting”, “WFA” and “OSS” are meaning. Could you please explain what these terms mean? Or please give me a link where find some explanations?

Of course no need to be impatient to use this new feature if this one is not operational for now. As Vonasi said wait until all parts are fully satisfied.

I am sincerely sorry for all these questions and if I get a little bit out of the subject…