4 ms·
I agree. HFT goes against the original ethos of a market open to all. Instead of trading on the merit of a given company, it simply reinforces the market is inc
by tails4e 3y ago
I agree. HFT goes against the original ethos of a market open to all. Instead of trading on the merit of a given company, it simply reinforces the market is increasingly gamified and unfair. It's like futures, no ones cares about the commodity being traded, or that doing so can really hurt people and business that rely on that item, it's just another item to be gambled.
- lxgr 3y ago> Instead of trading on the merit of a given company, it simply reinforces the market What you're proposing is actually not a ban on HFT, it's a ban on investment strategies other than value investing. How would you implement that in practice? Have every investor swear under oath that they do believe in the company's inherent value, regardless of the rest of the market's behavior? > HFT goes against the original ethos of a market open to all. What "original ethos" is that? And even if it existed, wouldn't excluding certain investors go against it much more?
- wiz21c 3y agoThe how is not the issue, the why is. And for the how, just limit the number of transactions one can do per second or the money one can exchange per second. Then everyone will have to be smart instead of being the one with the best connection. Or split the markets in "Joe invests" market and "Bigcorp" invests. Whatever scheme is defined as "stock exchange" can surely be fixed by another scheme. Humans have been inventing games and agreed to rules for centuries, it's not like it's something we can't do.
- tails4e 3y agoExcluding the investors that have literally paid for an advantage sounds fair to me (buying real estate closer to thr exchange because every ns counts).