3 ms·

> Market authorities should disallow sub-centisecond trades, and allocate the trades that fall on the same centisecond at random. This is similar to, but stric

by vostok 9y ago

> Market authorities should disallow sub-centisecond trades, and allocate the trades that fall on the same centisecond at random. This is similar to, but strictly worse than pro-rata allocation as used in quite a few products in the US. Pro-rata allocation has its own set of problems, namely that you encourage people to quote in larger size just in the hopes of getting a partial fill. There's also a larger speed advantage under this model because participants who are able to enter orders at the end of the centisecond time period will earn outsized profits. My estimate is that your proposed market model actually rewards speed to a greater extent than the current market structure. You also haven't demonstrated that pure price-time priority is bad in any way.

d--b 9y ago
Look, my view is that people put too much energy in shaving off microseconds to get to the exchange. This has no benefit for the non HFT traders in general. At some point, the exchange HAS to say that it received the orders at the same time. Currently that resolution is something like 1 ten millionth of a second. My opinion is that in making that time resolution coarser, we would avoid having people racing to trade in micro seconds, and spend all that stupid energy in being super fast.
- vostok 9y ago
  Have you considered that one or both parts of your view might be incorrect? Regardless, let's assume that your view is correct. Did you read my response? I explained why your proposal would still involve people racing to trade in microseconds. I also claimed, but didn't prove that your proposal would reward fast traders to a greater extent than the current system.
  - derefr 9y ago
    > At some point, the exchange HAS to say that it received the orders at the same time. This part of the GP's view is definitely correct: at some (theoretical) point, the exchange will be operating in Planck-time units, which are quantized.
    - vostok 9y ago
      I was referring to these two parts. > Look, my view is that people put too much energy in shaving off microseconds to get to the exchange. > This has no benefit for the non HFT traders in general.

by vostok 9y ago

d--b 9y ago

Look, my view is that people put too much energy in shaving off microseconds to get to the exchange. This has no benefit for the non HFT traders in general. At some point, the exchange HAS to say that it received the orders at the same time. Currently that resolution is something like 1 ten millionth of a second. My opinion is that in making that time resolution coarser, we would avoid having people racing to trade in micro seconds, and spend all that stupid energy in being super fast.

vostok 9y ago
Have you considered that one or both parts of your view might be incorrect? Regardless, let's assume that your view is correct. Did you read my response? I explained why your proposal would still involve people racing to trade in microseconds. I also claimed, but didn't prove that your proposal would reward fast traders to a greater extent than the current system.
- derefr 9y ago
  > At some point, the exchange HAS to say that it received the orders at the same time. This part of the GP's view is definitely correct: at some (theoretical) point, the exchange will be operating in Planck-time units, which are quantized.
  - vostok 9y ago
    I was referring to these two parts. > Look, my view is that people put too much energy in shaving off microseconds to get to the exchange. > This has no benefit for the non HFT traders in general.