HFT should be presumed innocent until proven guilty; the question isn't to defend HFT, it's to show it's actually a problem to begin with. Those wanting to reg

HFT should be presumed innocent until proven guilty; the question isn't to defend HFT, it's to show it's actually a problem to begin with. Those wanting to regular HFT really have no argument that makes sense other than "we don't understand that thing so it's bad". Proposing a tax on trades is punishing those presumed guilty without a lick of actual evidence they are. HFT don't need to prove they're good, they're just traders making trades in the market like anyone else, that they do it faster than a manual trader doesn't make them bad. To try and regulate them should require an actual case be made against them and all such cases I've seen so far are completely irrational emotional arguments by people who just want to point a finger at someone to explain why they're no longer able to compete.