This is answerable with numbers rather than opinions now, so here is where our
dataset stands as of today.
We have replayed every published signal of 32 channels against 1-minute candles
under one fixed rule set — 10,582 signals in total. 29 of those channels have
closed trades in the record. 23 of the 29 are cumulatively negative on their
own published plan: entries, targets and stops exactly as the channel posted
them, equal size on every trade, and no fees, no funding and no leverage
applied. Adding real trading costs makes each of those worse, never better.
Two details that explain how a losing channel still looks impressive:
- The median channel reaches a 2% move in its called direction before its stop
about 72% of the time. Being right most of the time is normal here. It is not
the same as making money, because nothing in that percentage carries the size
of the losses.
- The most accurate channel in our set — 91% by that measure, over 134 scored
signals — is also the deepest in the red, at roughly −592% cumulative across
125 closed trades. Both figures are real and they describe the same feed.
So: not "all scams", but the honest answer to "is it worth paying for" is that
paying is the smaller decision. Before money moves, ask for the calls that
resolved badly, ask over how many trades, and check whether the entry prices
were reachable at all. A channel worth its fee will have no problem with those
three questions.