Firstly, I wasn't arguing that the market is rigged: I was arguing that your argument doesn't hold, because there is actually an infinite amount of options to c

Firstly, I wasn't arguing that the market is rigged: I was arguing that your argument doesn't hold, because there is actually an infinite amount of options to choose from, instead of just two (or one, as you are implying). Secondly, you are not being constructive in your questioning, as you have already marked any answer I would give as 'complicated' (as if the system isn't complicated already). Thirdly you are unfairly asking for 'specifics', where you yourself are arguing in generalities. Why won't you be specific: explain why the market is not rigged? 'The market' is not 'innocent until proven guilty' or 'efficient until proven otherwise'. You claim the market is fair: prove it. Please be specific. Fourthly, as long as you are asking: I think we don't need the amount of Availability the system currently has. Quote stuffing is currently possible and you can get rid of that by reducing the availability of the system. Any form of rate limiting is a deliberate sacrifice of availability to achieve some other goal. Rate limiting the number of orders per licensed party, per instrument, per unit of time is eminently doable. In conclusion, from the whole of your posts here on HN, I think you are way too infatuated with capitalism and unable to see her for the bitch she sometimes is. Your response was uncivil and uncalled for.