3 ms·
Might be relevant to note that most markets are not using limit order books much (eg, FX, bonds, rates OTC). No one there would want to run purely formulaic mar
by RandomLensman 5y ago
Might be relevant to note that most markets are not using limit order books much (eg, FX, bonds, rates OTC). No one there would want to run purely formulaic market making as prices can gap etc.
I agree with idea/interesting concept of making market making better investible, tough.
- vmception 5y agoPrices gap due to illiquidity and markets being closed, in an AMM if a price should gap people can still get it there, but I can also see the reality of the AMM preventing people from just switching to the correct prices in the bids and asks without making unnecessary fills along the way. I just think that kind of coordination is so uncommon in traditional markets that its not worth the distinction.
- RandomLensman 5y agoIlliquidity is one possible reason, news and actions are other ones (e.g. Swiss Franc peg and removal of peg in 2010s, credit events etc.). No need for markets being closed or illiquid, just people figuring out a new state or straight jumping to it - and that expresses itself in a lack of liquidity sometimes, but it's not the cause.
- vmception 5y agoYeah AMM liquidity pools suck at repricing, this got me thinking… maybe liquidity providers can just disable their particular liquidity pool share in such an event. The goal is to see what price people will buy and sell at, which is what market makers do all day every day in other systems. (I’m sure people will try to abuse that to warp liquidity, but they already can by unwinding and removing their share.)