31–40 of 85 posts
If I was regulating the markets I would introduce a random ~100ms delay into all transactions.
The company who has the best latency would still beat the competitors.
If I was regulating the markets I would introduce a random ~100ms delay into all transactions.
The company who has the best latency would still beat the competitors.
If I was regulating the markets I would introduce a random ~100ms delay into all transactions.
If I was regulating the markets I would introduce a random ~100ms delay into all transactions.
"This 350 microsecond delay adds a round-trip delay of 0.0007 seconds and is designed to negate the certain speed advantages utilized by some high-frequency trader"
I watched this short video about it too - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8BcCLLX4N4
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The machines help humans. The bid/ask spread on a $100 share in 1970 as $5. Now it's $0.003 cents and it will continue to narrow, saving you and I money.
How big would it be if we limited machine trading such that milliseconds don't matter? Say run everything with 1Hz frequency instead?
If I was regulating the markets I would introduce a random ~100ms delay into all transactions.
It's weird that we've set up a stock market for machines rather than humans, where ever-faster bots interpose themselves between slightly slower bots, all the way up to the original buyer and seller, who are probably bots as well.
This all sounds so perverse to me. There are so many obviously brilliant people working on these things. Why aren't they doing something productive with their time? Fighting climate change, educating uneducated, feeding the unfed. All the energy and rare and bloody minerals that are being put into these radios, all the drinking water that will be forever tainted after having been used to produce the semiconductors ne…
Unfortunately, most people don't reflect too deeply on the social consequences of their choice of employment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The company who has the best latency would still beat the competitors.
They could collect all issued transactions in a ~100ms time window, process them in a randomized order, and publish new prices after that.
In fact with your exact proposal, assuming everyone has a connection with at most (say) 50ms latency, no one will join the batch in the first 50ms, which (I think) magnifies the low-latency advantage.
It's weird that we've set up a stock market for machines rather than humans, where ever-faster bots interpose themselves between slightly slower bots, all the way up to the original buyer and seller, who are probably bots as well.
This all sounds so perverse to me. There are so many obviously brilliant people working on these things. Why aren't they doing something productive with their time? Fighting climate change, educating uneducated, feeding the unfed. All the energy and rare and bloody minerals that are being put into these radios, all the drinking water that will be forever tainted after having been used to produce the semiconductors ne…
Why is it any of your business how other people spend their time? There's no objective standard for morality.
>To make the roulette wheel run a little faster? I don't understand it.
Maybe try learning a bit about how markets work and the service they provide. Your criticism makes as much sense as somebody with no familiarity with the software industry complaining about encryption researchers wasting their time enabling child abuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The company who has the best latency would still beat the competitors.
Are you sure about that? They would on average perhaps be a slight bit faster, but if the randomized delays are an order of magnitude larger than the latency, they may not be able to do anything useful with that advantage.
If the delays are randomized then you have as good as chance of getting them as your competitors. On delayed times you will have a bad chance of winning, but in comparison to others with the same delays your latency beats theirs, on non-delayed times your latency beats non-delayed competitors and really beats delayed competitors.
Thus in the end the best latency should win biggest on non-delayed trades, and on delayed trades lose least.