My intention wasn't to end the debate, but rather to steer it away from the substance-lessness that characterizes most debates about HFT. That being said (disc

My intention wasn't to end the debate, but rather to steer it away from the substance-lessness that characterizes most debates about HFT. That being said (disclaimer: I am a HFTer), this article is a pretty weak defense of HFT. Like others have pointed out it makes a lot of assertions not based on data/fact. However, I've yet to read a criticism of HFT that doesn't commit the same mistake (and I've read a lot of them). For a defense of HFT that uses hard data I'd direct people here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1501135 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1501135