> You have a weird notion of fairness. Why reward investment in low latency above all other investment? I didn't make that claim, best price should be ahead of

> You have a weird notion of fairness. Why reward investment in low latency above all other investment? I didn't make that claim, best price should be ahead of place in line. But place in line is the next most fair thing. > In any case, quantising to eg 1s, allowing arbitrary sub-penny bids, and fulfilling by prize and using time as a tiebreaker would be `most fair' in some sense: Remove quantising to 1s and I agree. Quantising makes it in no way more fair and removes the ability to use time as a tiebreaker. If time is the tie breaker, you don't need to quantisize as it adds nothing. > (I don't think the fairness of waiting in line is a fundamental thing. It's just one way for humans to allocate scarce resources, and it's not very economically efficient---it just works well with human psyche and social norms.) It works well with the human psyche and social norms precisely because it fits our innate ideas of fairness, and thus fairness is a fundamental thing. It's so fundamental in fact that it's evolved into us as experiments with monkeys and fairness show it to be innate.