4 ms·

If liquidity exists without HFT then it's not correct for HFTers to justify their existence by claiming they are liquidity providers. I realize the semantics o

If liquidity exists without HFT then it's not correct for HFTers to justify their existence by claiming they are liquidity providers. I realize the semantics of this can be argued ("existing liquidity doesn't preclude or prevent the existence HFT" for example), but not only do I think that is a wash argument but it also misses the point entirely on the utility of HFT.

paperwork 15y ago
To paraphrase professor Krishnamurthi [http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/ http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/] "Just semantics. That’s all there is!" HFTers don't have to justify their existence at all. They exist because they are able to profit and their existence is not against the law. As far ethics and morality, I guess that is what we are arguing here :) Liquidity is not pregnancy, there can be a little of it.