> No, it's not. Exchanges are few and (supposedly) extremely well regulated. The number of "bad actors" (spoofers or otherwise) is also small and under strict r

> No, it's not. Exchanges are few and (supposedly) extremely well regulated. The number of "bad actors" (spoofers or otherwise) is also small and under strict regulation. Almost everything you said is directly refuted in the article, or by some simple reasoning. Exchanges are not well regulated, as this happened for years, and they appear to have come down on the smallest offender. This is feel-good enforcement, and in no way comes with even an attempted guarantee that the behavior has been stopped. You're free to assume it has, but that's a probably niche view among people investing with their own money. > Additionally, at present the SEC is a part of the spoofing arms race, and is massively (and some say willingly due to regulatory capture) underfunded and incompetent in that race with no intent to win. Impossible mandates have a way of sapping your will. > You want to legislate it so that it has teeth? No, giving a bad law bigger teeth seems like a poor idea. I want to examine the root cause of the issue and fix that once and for all. The issue appears to be that someone decided that you should be able to trust my signals, "because trust, mkay". So inherently we've got a situation like poker where I benefit if you misread me, and we've got a re-active nanny trying to make me play nicely... If instead we said to you "his buy/sell orders aren't an appropriate signal for you to base things on because they're easy to misread", we'd be done. Then if you wanted a system where people didn't game it like this you could do what I proposed earlier and simply make each order cost a small amount if cancelled early or whatever. You'd know precisely how much (the early-cancellation fee) you could trust my signals. And then if enough people agreed, they'd start only accepting bids that had a deposit and you'd have your way, unlike now where you only think you do. > An equivalent claim is "It's like making shooting people in the streets a crime [...] Wow, no. Equivalency fail. Hitler much? But though, if you trust in a prohibition on murder to keep you safe and refuse to defend yourself, perhaps there is some small amount of similarity...