3 ms·
Sounds like you're talking about anti-latency arbitrage mechanisms, which aren't a new subject. The book Flash Boys talked about IEX, an exchange set up in Cana
by smolder 3y ago
Sounds like you're talking about anti-latency arbitrage mechanisms, which aren't a new subject. The book Flash Boys talked about IEX, an exchange set up in Canada with an enforced minimum latency via propagation delay, just by having long coils of fiberoptic cable...
I don't think nanosecond-sensitive trading should be a thing, personally, but sweeping changes to the way security exchange works seems less likely than societal collapse. Most apparent experts insist that letting algorithmic money vacuums operate is "good for liquidity," and that there is no viable more-fair alternative. I don't really buy it. IMO the obstacles to something better are just public ignorance, industry inertia, and a deeply lacking interest in fairness, i.e. corruption.
- BoiledCabbage 3y ago> Most apparent experts insist that letting algorithmic money vacuums operate is "good for liquidity," You do realize those "apparent experts" are mainly those ones making money from it (or are closely associated with them)? I also think the best policy national is for everyone to pay me $10 daily. And I can give you hundreds of pages in support as to why that is. And after I've made a few tens of millions of that, I can buy you an army of "apparent experts" that will agree with it. And for starters, by ensuring that money is moving daily (to my pocket), regardless of if a person is sitting on the couch at home watching tv all day, "greatly increases liquidity".
- smolder 3y agoI do realize that "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" I'm likewise very aware that that's a factor in people's defense of the status quo.