17 ms·

The Accidental HFT Firm (2018)

127 points by Twixes 3y ago

__d 3y ago
I'm still hoping that Matt is one day able to complete this book.
- scrlk 3y ago
  If you're looking for a HFT history book, I found "Trading at the Speed of Light" to be a good read: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691211381/trading-at-the-speed-of-light https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691211381/tr...
  - HolyLampshade 3y ago
    It’s a little dry, but that’s by design. It is far and away the best book on the subject.
- futevolei 3y ago
  For real, especially considering since I contributed to the kickstarter or whatever. I’ve dm’d him once or twice over the years on Twitter asking about it and no response.
  - __d 3y ago
    I'm a backer too. From what I've gleaned, he's had a few family/life issues that have ended up being pretty all-consuming.
quickthrower2 3y ago
Had a skim. The "An asset manager’s conclusion" section is very interesting. If you are the HFT, you may not be selling to idiots. Something I always wondered about Market Making HFT, what happens when the market moves suddenly because of fresh info, all those orders you have to fulfill that are smart.
- lopatin 3y ago
  It’s called adverse selection and informed order flow, and it’s one of the major challenges of market making. I believe they use trade secrets to try to prevent it as much as possible but they also instantly hedge if it does happen.
  - benmanns 3y ago
    This is why HFTs pay so much for order flow from retail firms. Large orders on the books at public exchanges are subject to informed traders, while retail orders from Robinhood are random (or worse).
- tel 3y ago
  As an MM, you manage your spread, the distance away from the midprice (say) that you're quoting. The tighter your spread, the more trades you pick up, the more profit you make against noise trading. The looser, the fewer you pick up and, importantly, the more time you get to react to seeing informed/toxic flow. So that's a huge part of the game, try to detect toxicity early and widen your spread as much as needed to stay out of it. In practice it means that whenever toxic flow hits a book the book's spread (the distance between the bid and ask) will widen as well as the new price is sought. Pay for Order Flow is a big tool here because you pretty much know that all trades done on free brokers are non-informed. If you subtract that out you increase the signal-to-noise ratio on predicting toxic flow. Finally, lets say you are hit and take on a bunch of toxic inventory. Now you need a place to dump it to. Your options depend heavily on your situation, but you might either hope you have complementary non-MM strategies which can absorb this inventory or you might hope that you can quickly shovel it off to another venue (another exchange, a dark pool) where you won't get hurt so badly. And if you can't do any of that, you take a loss.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Great comment, thank you very much!
  - WJW 3y ago
    Taking a diff between retail and informed order flows to detect when someone has new information is a cool trick.
ironSkillet 3y ago
This blog is fascinating. Thanks for sharing.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
SkipperCat 3y ago
One thing I love about the HFT world is the race to be fast. You cant get better by scaling out, you have to make your trading server as fast as possible. This leads to some whacky but clever hacks. I've always felt like I was working on a F1 race team when working in HFT. I never came across isolating CPUs, TCP offload, FPGAs, layer 1 switching until I joined a HFT shop. Its like a whole different way of looking at computing system architecture.
- roflyear 3y ago
  Necessity is an amazing thing: at a company I worked for, the dev team (which I was a part of) "couldn't make things cheaper" than $14k/m for a small app. We spun them into their own org, and now its "their money" they are spending. Their bill is $2k/m! Amazing!
  - thr_low_latency 3y ago
    It's easy to make things cheap by making them wrong. Making things fast though is a whole other world.
    - roflyear 3y ago
      "You can't get better by scaling out" disagrees with you. That's my point - if you scale out, it's more expensive.
      - thr_low_latency 3y ago
        The first step of getting decent latency out of modern computers is to build a pile of cash that's taller than you then set it on fire. They are optimized for throughput, not latency. If you want to do things in microseconds instead of anything from milliseconds to seconds you look at all the lovely code everyone has written in the last 40 years then throw it on top of the burning pile of cash. I work in an area where microseconds matter and have to write everything from scratch in kernel mode C because nothing else cuts it.
thr_low_latency 3y ago
A bit of background around the company: They received the largest fine (until that point in history) for trying to use this to front run the market from their dark pool. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-securities-regulation-itg-idUSKCN0QH1Q020150812 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-securities-regulation-itg...
- logicchains 3y ago
  This is what Alameda was doing on FTX right? Crazy that they managed to lose money even though they had priority access to front run customer orders.
  - thr_low_latency 3y ago
    To be fair so did ITG.
  - lordnacho 3y ago
    I think Alameda lost money doing silly bets and just losing it in the "don't know where I put it" way. Their MM operation was making lots of money according to someone I talked to. Just not enough to offset them setting it on fire.
    - landoftheice 3y ago
      [dead]
  - TacticalCoder 3y ago
    > This is what Alameda was doing on FTX right? Alameda did many illegal things, including lying to investors about their returns to get funding. And pump and dumping a huge lot of shitcoins which SBF created or funded. So I don't doubt they'd also frontrun their customers.
lordnacho 3y ago
Great blog, I learned a lot from it over the years. The confluence of market making and options is especially interesting. I also used Orc back in the day to trade options, and it's complicated. The thing about options is you have a whole bunch of instruments that are closely related, priced off the same underlying. So there's a smoothness constraint in there that you need to think about (have a google for "non-arbitrage vol surface"). Quickie options tutorial: when you trade an option, you have curvature risk. Meaning that when the price moves, the hedge is not some fixed number of contracts. This can be good or bad for you, depending on whether it's concave or convex. On top of that, normally if your gamma is positive (ie you make money either way it goes) you are paying for it by the option losing value (theta is negative). There's a bunch of these greeks, which are just the sensitivities of the option price to various inputs like price, implied volatility, interest rates, etc. Different parts of the surface have different greeks. So it's a bit of a balancing act. A sophisticated MM might decide to hold all their greeks within some range. This would mean slightly skewing your prices in some area of the surface in order to entice someone into trading with you, plus keeping an eye on the underlying. As for market making, it would be nice if prices just stayed the same. People would come and buy things from you for 101 and they would come and sell things to you at 99. You'd just be transporting one order to the other one in time, the perfect middle-man business. The customers win because they don't have to meet each other, and you win because you have 2 more in the account. Sadly that isn't what happens. Sometimes a guy comes by who wants to buy at 101, and then 102, and then 103. The market has moved, and you being such a nice guy have sold at those prices and are now short when the thing is more expensive. This not cool, but the real problem is that you were standing there the whole time offering product while not knowing what it was worth. What's worse is that you're more likely to get deals when this is the case. This is the adverse selection issue: you have a bunch of competitors when things are plain sailing but then when things move you "win" the deals. So, what to do? One thing you can do is just not trade with that guy with the massive orders. Find a bunch of punters who aren't dealing massive orders, and deal in opposite ways to each other. Often what actually happens is some guy who is good at marketing builds a business doing this, and since he doesn't know how to also do the market making, he cuts a deal with a market maker. This is what you might have read about. You split the earnings between the marketing business and the risk business. All of the above is of course helped by being really fast. If you see a bunch of sellers, you pull your bids quickly so they don't sell to you. If you see that you need to move your prices, you do it fast so that you're first on the new price. There's even more to this game in the form of arbitraging other people's orders, but we'll leave that for now.
kajaktum 3y ago
I got sucked into a finance rabbit hole and I have been reading about some "tricks" in market making and I don't see why these are problematic? Even if it is a problem, how would you even prove it? Is it wrong to place an ask order at much lower price, then backing off if it doesn't work out? Should I just put my limit order and let it stay there? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoofing_(financhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_flash_crashe) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoofing_(financhttps://en.wik... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layering_(finance) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layering_(finance) 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_flash_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_flash_crash
- alexpetralia 3y ago
  No, placing orders and then canceling them is very common and makes up the majority of orders. It is not spoofing. Spoofing is about the intent to mislead the market.
- reverend_gonzo 3y ago
  It’s all about intent. If you place a bonafide order with the intent of it getting, but at a later time (1ms is fine) decide that is no longer a good price, you are cancel it. However, if you place an order that you do not intend to get filled to make the market think there is demand when there actually isn’t, that is illegal. So, how do they prove this? Well, proving intent is hard, unless you’re dumb enough to send emails saying, for example, you want a smart order type that won’t get filled.
smabie 3y ago
This is the best post I've found that actually describes what it's like to run a HFT firm / desk. Probably best article ever written about HFT. For me HFT is the most interesting job one can have and it requires you to be good at a variety of things to make money: low level tech, quant modeling, risk management, business sense so you can cut good deals, etc. Unfortunate the industry is unfairly maligned by people who really don't know what they're talking about (like Michael Lewis in Flash Boys). It's cheaper to trade now (especially for retail) than it ever has been in history and the positive effect this has had on the capital markets and the economy in general cannot be understated.
metadat 3y ago
Discussed at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16222530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16222530 (5 years ago, 32 comments)
marsupialtail_2 3y ago
Perhaps I charged too little when I contracted away my 10x random forest inference solution...
renewiltord 3y ago
Author is https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=mhurd https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=mhurd I'd pay $100 for the book
pjanoman 3y ago
While I'm generally pro-HFT and market making, I'm seeing some comments that are equating market making and high frequency trading. They're not the same thing. As an HFT firm, you can have two kinds of strategies: Liquidity providing and liquidity taking. This article calls these two strategies market making and "being an aggressor" in the "Strategy Zero" and "Survival!" sections. The HFT describes their aggressor strategy as follows: "Mr. F., one of the original hires, coded what we called Strategy Zero. It was simple: have no position, wait for an option edge of a reasonable size, at least a tick. Then, hit it. Wait. Dump it out and take a tick profit." In this case, the strategy involves 1) seeing that you can buy a security at $10, 2) knowing that the security is actually worth $10.01 and will move to this price in a few seconds, 3) lifting someone's $10 offer, 4) waiting the few seconds for the market to move, and 5) hitting someone's $10.01 bid for a $.01/share profit. This liquidity taking strategy is not similar to a liquidity providing strategy. Liquidity providing is leaving orders on the order book for anyone to take and gaining money from one person who buys your shares for $10 and from another who sells shares to you at $10.01. This involves more risk to your business. I think that if you want to debate the merits of whether working at an HFT firm is an actually useful service, you have to look at how often the HFT firm provides liquidity versus takes liquidity. Providing liquidity more obviously tightens spreads and improves prices, as you can't be a successful liquidity provider unless you provide the best prices first. Liquidity taking, however, involves lifting orders from exchanges that you know are incorrectly priced, which seems to me like a more obvious "bad" (or at least less good than liquidity providing).
- usefulcat 3y ago
  > Liquidity providing is leaving orders on the order book for anyone to take and gaining money from one person who buys your shares for $10 and from another who sells shares to you at $10.01. I think you have that backwards. If you always sell at $10 and buy at $10.01 you lose on every trade.
reisse 3y ago
Gosh, seeing someone actually posting in the public about their experience using Orc gives me very strange feeling. Some context here. Software design-wise, Orc was stuck in 00s. Not scalable, hard to support, hard to add new features, etc. And the corporate structure did not allow for innovations. Somewhere in the end of 00s group of engineers left Orc (the company) to rebuild the trading platform from the ground up, and formed a new company, called Tbricks. Tbricks was such a success that Orc (again, the company) spend a lot of cash to acquire it, put key people from Tbricks to the leading positions and sunset legacy (classic, as we called them) Orc products. After the merger, the company was renamed to Itiviti. I came there ~a year after the merger and worked for five years as an SWE in the Tbricks team. The goal of the merger was to migrate all Orc customers to Tbricks in a year or two. Five years later I left the company, and there still were a few of major customers not migrated yet. Orc was supported by one or two persons full-time, and a few of greybeards who moved on to the new projects, but still had the knowledge. And I think it is still bringing few millions USD a year in license costs.
momofarm 3y ago
So these HFT guys doing is daytrade with options? That's quite risky.....if you are not with the trend you may blow up account quickly
euroderf 3y ago
I have yet to be convinced that HFT is anything other than a big scam for skimming fractions of percentage points off of everything it can get its mitts on.

127 points by Twixes 3y ago

__d 3y ago

I'm still hoping that Matt is one day able to complete this book.

scrlk 3y ago
If you're looking for a HFT history book, I found "Trading at the Speed of Light" to be a good read: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691211381/trading-at-the-speed-of-light https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691211381/tr...
- HolyLampshade 3y ago
  It’s a little dry, but that’s by design. It is far and away the best book on the subject.
futevolei 3y ago
For real, especially considering since I contributed to the kickstarter or whatever. I’ve dm’d him once or twice over the years on Twitter asking about it and no response.
- __d 3y ago
  I'm a backer too. From what I've gleaned, he's had a few family/life issues that have ended up being pretty all-consuming.

quickthrower2 3y ago

Had a skim. The "An asset manager’s conclusion" section is very interesting. If you are the HFT, you may not be selling to idiots. Something I always wondered about Market Making HFT, what happens when the market moves suddenly because of fresh info, all those orders you have to fulfill that are smart.

lopatin 3y ago
It’s called adverse selection and informed order flow, and it’s one of the major challenges of market making. I believe they use trade secrets to try to prevent it as much as possible but they also instantly hedge if it does happen.
- benmanns 3y ago
  This is why HFTs pay so much for order flow from retail firms. Large orders on the books at public exchanges are subject to informed traders, while retail orders from Robinhood are random (or worse).
tel 3y ago
As an MM, you manage your spread, the distance away from the midprice (say) that you're quoting. The tighter your spread, the more trades you pick up, the more profit you make against noise trading. The looser, the fewer you pick up and, importantly, the more time you get to react to seeing informed/toxic flow. So that's a huge part of the game, try to detect toxicity early and widen your spread as much as needed to stay out of it. In practice it means that whenever toxic flow hits a book the book's spread (the distance between the bid and ask) will widen as well as the new price is sought. Pay for Order Flow is a big tool here because you pretty much know that all trades done on free brokers are non-informed. If you subtract that out you increase the signal-to-noise ratio on predicting toxic flow. Finally, lets say you are hit and take on a bunch of toxic inventory. Now you need a place to dump it to. Your options depend heavily on your situation, but you might either hope you have complementary non-MM strategies which can absorb this inventory or you might hope that you can quickly shovel it off to another venue (another exchange, a dark pool) where you won't get hurt so badly. And if you can't do any of that, you take a loss.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Great comment, thank you very much!
- WJW 3y ago
  Taking a diff between retail and informed order flows to detect when someone has new information is a cool trick.

ironSkillet 3y ago

This blog is fascinating. Thanks for sharing.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

SkipperCat 3y ago

One thing I love about the HFT world is the race to be fast. You cant get better by scaling out, you have to make your trading server as fast as possible. This leads to some whacky but clever hacks. I've always felt like I was working on a F1 race team when working in HFT. I never came across isolating CPUs, TCP offload, FPGAs, layer 1 switching until I joined a HFT shop. Its like a whole different way of looking at computing system architecture.

roflyear 3y ago
Necessity is an amazing thing: at a company I worked for, the dev team (which I was a part of) "couldn't make things cheaper" than $14k/m for a small app. We spun them into their own org, and now its "their money" they are spending. Their bill is $2k/m! Amazing!
- thr_low_latency 3y ago
  It's easy to make things cheap by making them wrong. Making things fast though is a whole other world.
  - roflyear 3y ago
    "You can't get better by scaling out" disagrees with you. That's my point - if you scale out, it's more expensive.
    - thr_low_latency 3y ago
      The first step of getting decent latency out of modern computers is to build a pile of cash that's taller than you then set it on fire. They are optimized for throughput, not latency. If you want to do things in microseconds instead of anything from milliseconds to seconds you look at all the lovely code everyone has written in the last 40 years then throw it on top of the burning pile of cash. I work in an area where microseconds matter and have to write everything from scratch in kernel mode C because nothing else cuts it.

thr_low_latency 3y ago

A bit of background around the company: They received the largest fine (until that point in history) for trying to use this to front run the market from their dark pool. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-securities-regulation-itg-idUSKCN0QH1Q020150812 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-securities-regulation-itg...

logicchains 3y ago
This is what Alameda was doing on FTX right? Crazy that they managed to lose money even though they had priority access to front run customer orders.
- thr_low_latency 3y ago
  To be fair so did ITG.
- lordnacho 3y ago
  I think Alameda lost money doing silly bets and just losing it in the "don't know where I put it" way. Their MM operation was making lots of money according to someone I talked to. Just not enough to offset them setting it on fire.
  - landoftheice 3y ago
    [dead]
- TacticalCoder 3y ago
  > This is what Alameda was doing on FTX right? Alameda did many illegal things, including lying to investors about their returns to get funding. And pump and dumping a huge lot of shitcoins which SBF created or funded. So I don't doubt they'd also frontrun their customers.

lordnacho 3y ago

Great blog, I learned a lot from it over the years. The confluence of market making and options is especially interesting. I also used Orc back in the day to trade options, and it's complicated. The thing about options is you have a whole bunch of instruments that are closely related, priced off the same underlying. So there's a smoothness constraint in there that you need to think about (have a google for "non-arbitrage vol surface"). Quickie options tutorial: when you trade an option, you have curvature risk. Meaning that when the price moves, the hedge is not some fixed number of contracts. This can be good or bad for you, depending on whether it's concave or convex. On top of that, normally if your gamma is positive (ie you make money either way it goes) you are paying for it by the option losing value (theta is negative). There's a bunch of these greeks, which are just the sensitivities of the option price to various inputs like price, implied volatility, interest rates, etc. Different parts of the surface have different greeks. So it's a bit of a balancing act. A sophisticated MM might decide to hold all their greeks within some range. This would mean slightly skewing your prices in some area of the surface in order to entice someone into trading with you, plus keeping an eye on the underlying. As for market making, it would be nice if prices just stayed the same. People would come and buy things from you for 101 and they would come and sell things to you at 99. You'd just be transporting one order to the other one in time, the perfect middle-man business. The customers win because they don't have to meet each other, and you win because you have 2 more in the account. Sadly that isn't what happens. Sometimes a guy comes by who wants to buy at 101, and then 102, and then 103. The market has moved, and you being such a nice guy have sold at those prices and are now short when the thing is more expensive. This not cool, but the real problem is that you were standing there the whole time offering product while not knowing what it was worth. What's worse is that you're more likely to get deals when this is the case. This is the adverse selection issue: you have a bunch of competitors when things are plain sailing but then when things move you "win" the deals. So, what to do? One thing you can do is just not trade with that guy with the massive orders. Find a bunch of punters who aren't dealing massive orders, and deal in opposite ways to each other. Often what actually happens is some guy who is good at marketing builds a business doing this, and since he doesn't know how to also do the market making, he cuts a deal with a market maker. This is what you might have read about. You split the earnings between the marketing business and the risk business. All of the above is of course helped by being really fast. If you see a bunch of sellers, you pull your bids quickly so they don't sell to you. If you see that you need to move your prices, you do it fast so that you're first on the new price. There's even more to this game in the form of arbitraging other people's orders, but we'll leave that for now.

kajaktum 3y ago

I got sucked into a finance rabbit hole and I have been reading about some "tricks" in market making and I don't see why these are problematic? Even if it is a problem, how would you even prove it? Is it wrong to place an ask order at much lower price, then backing off if it doesn't work out? Should I just put my limit order and let it stay there? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoofing_(financhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_flash_crashe) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoofing_(financhttps://en.wik... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layering_(finance) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layering_(finance) 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_flash_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_flash_crash

alexpetralia 3y ago
No, placing orders and then canceling them is very common and makes up the majority of orders. It is not spoofing. Spoofing is about the intent to mislead the market.
reverend_gonzo 3y ago
It’s all about intent. If you place a bonafide order with the intent of it getting, but at a later time (1ms is fine) decide that is no longer a good price, you are cancel it. However, if you place an order that you do not intend to get filled to make the market think there is demand when there actually isn’t, that is illegal. So, how do they prove this? Well, proving intent is hard, unless you’re dumb enough to send emails saying, for example, you want a smart order type that won’t get filled.

smabie 3y ago

This is the best post I've found that actually describes what it's like to run a HFT firm / desk. Probably best article ever written about HFT. For me HFT is the most interesting job one can have and it requires you to be good at a variety of things to make money: low level tech, quant modeling, risk management, business sense so you can cut good deals, etc. Unfortunate the industry is unfairly maligned by people who really don't know what they're talking about (like Michael Lewis in Flash Boys). It's cheaper to trade now (especially for retail) than it ever has been in history and the positive effect this has had on the capital markets and the economy in general cannot be understated.

metadat 3y ago

Discussed at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16222530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16222530 (5 years ago, 32 comments)

marsupialtail_2 3y ago

Perhaps I charged too little when I contracted away my 10x random forest inference solution...

renewiltord 3y ago

Author is https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=mhurd https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=mhurd I'd pay $100 for the book

pjanoman 3y ago

While I'm generally pro-HFT and market making, I'm seeing some comments that are equating market making and high frequency trading. They're not the same thing. As an HFT firm, you can have two kinds of strategies: Liquidity providing and liquidity taking. This article calls these two strategies market making and "being an aggressor" in the "Strategy Zero" and "Survival!" sections. The HFT describes their aggressor strategy as follows: "Mr. F., one of the original hires, coded what we called Strategy Zero. It was simple: have no position, wait for an option edge of a reasonable size, at least a tick. Then, hit it. Wait. Dump it out and take a tick profit." In this case, the strategy involves 1) seeing that you can buy a security at $10, 2) knowing that the security is actually worth $10.01 and will move to this price in a few seconds, 3) lifting someone's $10 offer, 4) waiting the few seconds for the market to move, and 5) hitting someone's $10.01 bid for a $.01/share profit. This liquidity taking strategy is not similar to a liquidity providing strategy. Liquidity providing is leaving orders on the order book for anyone to take and gaining money from one person who buys your shares for $10 and from another who sells shares to you at $10.01. This involves more risk to your business. I think that if you want to debate the merits of whether working at an HFT firm is an actually useful service, you have to look at how often the HFT firm provides liquidity versus takes liquidity. Providing liquidity more obviously tightens spreads and improves prices, as you can't be a successful liquidity provider unless you provide the best prices first. Liquidity taking, however, involves lifting orders from exchanges that you know are incorrectly priced, which seems to me like a more obvious "bad" (or at least less good than liquidity providing).

usefulcat 3y ago
> Liquidity providing is leaving orders on the order book for anyone to take and gaining money from one person who buys your shares for $10 and from another who sells shares to you at $10.01. I think you have that backwards. If you always sell at $10 and buy at $10.01 you lose on every trade.

reisse 3y ago

Gosh, seeing someone actually posting in the public about their experience using Orc gives me very strange feeling. Some context here. Software design-wise, Orc was stuck in 00s. Not scalable, hard to support, hard to add new features, etc. And the corporate structure did not allow for innovations. Somewhere in the end of 00s group of engineers left Orc (the company) to rebuild the trading platform from the ground up, and formed a new company, called Tbricks. Tbricks was such a success that Orc (again, the company) spend a lot of cash to acquire it, put key people from Tbricks to the leading positions and sunset legacy (classic, as we called them) Orc products. After the merger, the company was renamed to Itiviti. I came there ~a year after the merger and worked for five years as an SWE in the Tbricks team. The goal of the merger was to migrate all Orc customers to Tbricks in a year or two. Five years later I left the company, and there still were a few of major customers not migrated yet. Orc was supported by one or two persons full-time, and a few of greybeards who moved on to the new projects, but still had the knowledge. And I think it is still bringing few millions USD a year in license costs.

momofarm 3y ago

So these HFT guys doing is daytrade with options? That's quite risky.....if you are not with the trend you may blow up account quickly

euroderf 3y ago

I have yet to be convinced that HFT is anything other than a big scam for skimming fractions of percentage points off of everything it can get its mitts on.