241–250 of 255 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are you calculating that?
Mostly articles like https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/2015... (this case is also being prosecuted by SDNY) and a general expectation that she won't go scot free (so not just 21 days) but also that SBF is the one they really want to put away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have always wondered why "x" and "conspiracy to commit x" are different counts.
If I remember correctly, it has its roots in the RICO statutes which arose from FBI attempts to break up the mafia. The idea was to make it easier to prosecute people who did not actually pull the trigger but who were involved in planning and ordering of such crimes. Now, a wiretap of a boss ordering a hit could result in the same sentence as the gunman. Unfortunately it has been abused greatly, including drivers who…
In the Alameda case this could make everyone in on the conspiracy liable to the same exposure as SBF
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not particularly strange. There are whole web pages devoted to the "right time of day" to submit something to this site to catch the most early up votes.
Please link those pages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Minor nit pick: some products, such as exchange-traded calendar spreads, have prices that can go negative and in fact don't have a lower limit on price. When I was writing trading systems, it was a big headache to modify a system original designed only for equities to handle other asset types, especially those that could have negative prices.
Fun fun, that must have been quite the project! Price is so cross-cutting to such systems. When I added futures to my first system (>15 years ago), I had no idea about negative prices and had tons of sanity checks, including positive price checks. Even in 2020, some popular trading platforms failed to handle when oil futures went negative! Opportunity for the prepared, I suppose. EDIT: Oh and saw your follow-up -- we…
We had one bespoke protocol for communicating between the order management system (conceptually a high-reliability database that holds order state and communicates with components connected to exchanges) and the trading engines (higher code churn rate, and can recover order state from the order management systems if they need to be restarted, so less critical). When we created a second version of the order management system, we created a wholly new bespoke messaging protocol where every field was optional with a default value, and had an unfortunate feature that if one side set a field in a message to the default for that data type, the messaging layer would size-optimize the messages by removing that field. Combined with encoding order amendments as messages where all of the unchanged fields were removed, it meant that if an order ever had a field amended to a default value, the other side of the communication would interpret it as no change, and would acknowledge the message but not amend the value.
It wasn't a big deal for a lot of the order paremeters that got thrown into a single customization string, since it probably wasn't actually possible to amend on order to become completely vanilla (upstream systems tacked on some customizations between receiving the order from the customer and presenting the order to the OMS).
However, amending a price to zero would result in this space-saving optimization, and the trading engine would interpret it as no change in price. The API did have separate calls for getting a field value (which would transparently return the default value for missing fields) and for checking if a value was actually specified. Though, due to the "optimization" in the messaging layer, checking of a value was specified was really just a check if the returned value was equal to the default value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's even better. Let's say it was a scam for the first 5 years. Total scam, they spent all the money on drugs. It would only take a year for the short-term low-yield US treasury interest on the rest of the assets to completely pay Tether back. That's only possible because Tether has been growing. It would take more than a decade of interest if it had merely doubled in size.
The strong and risky assumption here is that tether actually received money and put it in some paper. But what many believe is that tether received crypto from the big exchanges and put it in crypto stuff that yields more crypto, so the billions of circulating tether is not backed by billions of Treasury bills or Chinese real estate: they are for a significant part backed by various tokens which have probably gone to…
So why would people use Tether as opposed to Coinbase's stablecoin?
She is not going to see the inside of a jail cell more likely. Woman, educated, fragile looking, and well aware of the political game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never understood how stop losses are supposed to help. Traders read heaps of news, do God knows what technical analysis yet simple "moves bit too much in wrong direction" is supposed to be an acceptable exit strategy.
If you trade highly leveraged stuff, you need stop losses; otherwise there is a considerable chance you will go bankrupt. Especially when you take bets on interest rate decisions, take the sweeps at market open and other stuff (you can gain a few hundred points on NQ1! per contract easily during such times). Also, it's a psychological thing: traders think in risk. If they were mistaken with a trade idea, they close t…
This is false. In the context of high volume trading (which we are discussing here), a naive stop loss will obliterate any profits you might accrue with your strategy. Execution of your stop loss will simply eat through the whole order book and give you the worst possible price for your exit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never understood how stop losses are supposed to help. Traders read heaps of news, do God knows what technical analysis yet simple "moves bit too much in wrong direction" is supposed to be an acceptable exit strategy.
It's about recovery. A loss of 10 percent necessitates an 11 percent gain to recover. Increase that loss to 25 percent and it takes a 33 percent gain to get back to break-even. A 50 percent loss requires a 100 percent gain to recover and an 80 percent loss necessitates 500 percent in gains to get back to where the investment value started.