Trading Automation Operator/Builder

I am looking for one serious trading automation operator-builder to help implement the first live pilot of Botlok — a verifiable bot/signal/action receipt layer. This is not a generic developer job. This is not a lead-generation job. This is not a research report job. This is not a request for trading signals or investment advice. The best fit is not someone who only wants a one-off Upwork contract. The best fit is someone who actually wants and needs a receipt layer inside their own trading automation flow — because users, subscribers, buyers, copier clients, or followers already question what happened when a trade, signal, copier, EA, bridge, bot, or broker behaves differently than expected. In other words: I am happy to pay for the implementation work, but I am especially looking for someone who would also want Botlok because it solves a real trust/reputation/support problem in their own operation. The product should dovetail into an existing transaction flow. Examples: - TradingView alert → webhook bridge → MT4/MT5 - Telegram signal → parser → MT5 copier - master account → trade copier → follower accounts - EA decision → order submit/reject/fill - crypto bot signal → exchange API → fill/reject - copy-trade leader → subscriber execution - signal provider → downstream trader results The goal is to create a tamper-evident receipt of what actually happened: - signal sent - signal received - raw payload/message captured - parser output - bot/EA/copier decision - order submitted - order suppressed - order rejected - order delayed - broker/exchange response - fill/no-fill/slippage - copied/not copied - final state So when someone says: - “Your signal never fired.” - “The copier missed my trade.” - “Your bridge delayed my order.” - “The bot did not execute.” - “The EA rejected the trade.” - “Your system cost me money.” - “That signal was edited after the fact.” - “The broker, VPS, user settings, or copier caused the mismatch.” …the operator can show a verifiable receipt instead of screenshots, mutable logs, or long support explanations. The first version should be observer-mode / shadow-mode where possible. That means: - no API keys required from me - no live funds required - no trading authority required - no private strategy disclosure required - no private client/user data required - no changing live trade behavior unless separately agreed - no off-platform communication The pilot should record what happened, generate receipts, and prove the chain — without taking over the trading system. Who I want: 1. Operator-builder You run, sell, or maintain a real trading automation system with users, subscribers, buyers, copier clients, followers, or downstream traders. 2. Product-node builder You own or maintain a trade copier, signal bridge, EA, webhook tool, Telegram-to-MT5 copier, TradingView-to-broker bridge, dashboard, or bot tool used by real users. 3. Technical operator-adjacent builder You build/maintain live systems for operators and can bring a real pilot surface, public dispute pattern, or reachable operator context — not just a generic build. Ideal ecosystems: - MQL5 Signals - MQL5 Market / EA sellers - MT4/MT5 Expert Advisors - trade copiers - copy-trade systems - account managers - TradingView-to-MT4/MT5 bridges - Telegram-to-MT5 signal copiers - crypto signal/copy-trade bots - webhook-to-broker automation - Myfxbook / FXBlue-style public performance systems - prop-firm copier workflows - paid signal groups with public reputation pressure The strongest candidate has both: 1. A real technical flow where receipts can be implemented. 2. A real business reason to want receipts after the paid work is done. That business reason might be: - fewer support disputes - stronger review replies - better subscriber trust - proof that your signal was sent before the move - proof that your copier dispatched the order - proof that the broker or user setup caused the mismatch - proof that your EA suppressed/rejected a trade for a valid reason - proof that your system did what it was supposed to do I am especially interested in honest operators where truth helps. If a receipt would help you prove that your system did the right thing, you are likely a fit. If a receipt would expose that your system is misleading, fake, or intentionally hiding risk, you are not a fit. Budget: Up to $7,500 total for the right fit, staged by milestone. Milestone 1 — $500: Pilot-fit + implementation-feasibility brief. Milestone 2 — $2,000: Pilot design + receipt instrumentation plan around your actual flow. Milestone 3 — $5,000: Observer-mode receipt prototype or pilot implementation. Milestone 2 and 3 only open if Milestone 1 confirms that there is a real fit. This is paid pilot work through Upwork. This is not equity. This is not a cofounder role. This is not revenue share. This is not a request for you to hand over private clients. This is not a request for trading access. If the pilot works and you genuinely want to keep using the receipt layer, there may be a longer-term relationship around Botlok adoption, implementation, and public proof use. But the first step is simple: prove whether your real workflow is the right first pilot. You are NOT a fit if: - you only trade your own private account - you have no users, buyers, subscribers, copier clients, or public reputation surface - you only want to build software with no real pilot surface - you only want to make a research report - you are mainly a generic marketer or lead-list researcher - you cannot describe a real signal/execution/copying dispute - you cannot explain where a receipt would actually be shown - you want API keys, trading access, or private funds - you want to move communication off Upwork The win is not a beautiful document. The win is receipts generated from automated trading flow, with a clear path to being shown to a user, subscriber, buyer, reviewer, or client when a dispute happens. If this is your world — and if you actually want this receipt layer because it would help your own operation — I want to hear from you.