High-Speed Traders Are Feuding Over a Way To Save 3.2 Billionths of a Second - Slashdot

High-Speed Traders Are Feuding Over a Way To Save 3.2 Billionths of a Second - Slashdot
Close
binspam
dupe
notthebest
offtopic
slownewsday
stale
stupid
fresh
funny
insightful
interesting
maybe
offtopic
flamebait
troll
redundant
overrated
insightful
interesting
informative
funny
underrated
descriptive
typo
dupe
error
180397613
story
A millisecond used to be a big deal for the world's quickest traders. A dispute over huge trading profits at one of the world's largest futures exchanges
shows they now think a million times faster
non-paywalled source
. From a report:
The controversy is about an arcane technical maneuver in which high-speed traders bombard Frankfurt-based Eurex with useless data. The idea is to keep their connections to the exchange warm so they can react fractionally faster to market-moving information. The battle is the latest chapter in a decadeslong contest among secretive ultrafast trading firms, which have pursued a relentless quest for minuscule speed advantages.
A group of high-frequency trading firms has exploited the practice to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars, says Mosaic Finance, a French firm that has complained to Eurex and European regulators. "An arms race is OK, but you must use legal weapons," said Hugues Morin, founder of Mosaic. Eurex says Mosaic's claims are baseless.
[...] High-speed traders often seek to capture fleeting differences between prices of related assets, making quick response times critical. If benchmark Euro Stoxx 50 index futures rise, for example, contracts tied to Germany's DAX will usually follow. A first mover will be able to buy DAX futures before they tick higher, then sell out at a higher price -- a strategy that can add up to big profits over time. The maneuver that prompted Mosaic's spat with Eurex can improve reaction times by about 3.2 nanoseconds, according to the French firm, which calls it "corrupted speculative triggering," or CST for short.
You may like to read:
Tech Giants Can't Agree On What To Call Their AI-Powered Glasses
'USB-A Isn't Going Anywhere, So Stop Removing the Port'
New Book Argues Hybrid Schedules 'Don't Work', Return-to-Office Brings Motivation and Learning
'A Black Hole': America's New Graduates Discover a Dismal Job Market
Toxic Workplaces Are Worsening: 80% of U.S. Workers Say Their Job Hurts Mental Health
WSJ: Tech-Industry Workers Now 'Miserable', Fearing Layoffs, Working Longer Hours
McKinsey Plots Thousands of Job Cuts in Slowdown for Consulting Industry
This discussion has been archived.

No new comments can be posted.
High-Speed Traders Are Feuding Over a Way To Save 3.2 Billionths of a Second
More
High-Speed Traders Are Feuding Over a Way To Save 3.2 Billionths of a Second
Comments Filter:
All
Insightful
Informative
Interesting
Funny
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Add Random Latency to Trades
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Luthair
( 847766 )
writes:
on Tuesday December 16, 2025 @12:44PM (
#65861727
And just kill the people trying to use arbitrage to front run the market. They aren't adding any value, they're leeches.
Share
Re:Add Random Latency to Trades
Score:
, Informative)
by
Retired Chemist
( 5039029 )
writes:
on Tuesday December 16, 2025 @01:03PM (
#65861775
It depends on who you are. It affects ordinary stock traders who would otherwise get more profits from their trades. It affects people who are invested in the stock market because it can reduce the profits of their investments. The money they are making has to come from somewhere.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
geekmux
( 1040042 )
writes:
It depends on who you are. It affects ordinary stock traders who would otherwise get more profits from their trades. It affects people who are invested in the stock market because it can reduce the profits of their investments. The money they are making has to come from somewhere.
30 years ago the transaction per second rate was considerably less.
Just because
technology
has enabled many more trades to happen in that same single second, doesn't mean value has been inherently created that must "come" from somewhere.
Tends to be how value becomes overhyped bullshit turning a stock market into a house of cards. Not unlike today.
Re:
Score:
by
Retired Chemist
( 5039029 )
writes:
I agree that the stock market has become more like a casino than a way of companies raising funds, but that is not the point. The money that these firms make is money that other traders using normal methods do not. Since my money is invested in stocks and bonds the value they are extracting in the end reduces my income.
Re: Add Random Latency to Trades
Score:
by
blue trane
( 110704 )
writes:
Are you complaining that they spent more money than you can afford to get information that allows them to make money off your trades, in a market that set 48 record highs this year alone?
Re:
Score:
by
Retired Chemist
( 5039029 )
writes:
I did not say that I cared at all. This mostly seems to be a quarrel between two bunches of parasites over who will get to suck the blood.
Re:
Score:
by
dfghjk
( 711126 )
writes:
It affects everyone.
Re:
Score:
by
Z00L00K
( 682162 )
writes:
I agree, however the solution would be to have a randomized delay of 15 to 30 minutes between the order and it being effected.
Then the microseconds they gain would be useless.
HFT exists because it's profitable. If it's not profitable then it will be more profitable for small traders.
Re:
Score:
by
Deal In One
( 6459326 )
writes:
I think a random 0.01 to 1.00 second delay will be enough when you are looking at mili or nano seconds. And it will not be very noticable for the average "manual trader".
Don't need to wait for minutes.
:)
Re:Add Random Latency to Trades
Score:
, Insightful)
by
flibbidyfloo
( 451053 )
writes:
on Tuesday December 16, 2025 @02:00PM (
#65861955
Even a random delay of 10-20 seconds would destroy their business model, which would be a net positive in my book. And it would have much less effect on "normal" people (i.e. human traders).
Maybe also set a cap on the number of trades one can make in a minute. The idea of a stock market was never conceived to allow for trading faster than a bunch of people could do manually. Letting them use computers is a great equalizer for accessibility. But letting companies use computers that can function like a million people at lightning speed just breaks it and destroys accessibility all over again.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
necro81
( 917438 )
writes:
Even a random delay of 10-20 seconds would destroy their business model, which would be a net positive in my book.
Careful now, with an attitude like that you'll end up with
Jesse Eisenberg coming after you with a chainsaw
[youtube.com].
Re:
Score:
by
rickb928
( 945187 )
writes:
There is currently no legal framework or justification for this. Any attempt by the markets themselves to do this would result in lawsuits and retreat.
While HFT is, to me, unethical, we're going to have to find an ethical means of reducing or eliminating it.
How about variable per transaction fees, starting at $.0001 per trade, then increasing with frequency of the trader's periodic transactions, so maybe at 10,000/hr the fee goes to $.001. At 1M/hr, $.01. After 10M/hr, $.1 per.
No doubt this is somehow unsus
Re:
Score:
by
jenningsthecat
( 1525947 )
writes:
In 2023 there was a serious proposal put to the FCC to allocate some radio frequencies between 3 and 25MHz to permit financial data transmission. This was intended to serve the HFT business, and would provide an even faster and more reliable network for trade data.
How would that even work? At 25 MHz the maximum data rate is roughly 12 megabits per second, and that's pushing it. And the channels operating at lower frequencies would have correspondingly lower data rates.
I suppose the lack of network routing latency would be an advantage, as would the fact that the delay is both determinate and consistent. But can a trade be executed in a number of bytes small enough to overcome the limitations of such a narrow pipe? Not to mention spurious or intentional RF interferenc
Re: Add Random Latency to Trades
Score:
by
rickb928
( 945187 )
writes:
You had it, it's all about the latency. The absolute bandwidth is not so important necessarily. The data bandwidth over a 25 MHz carrier isn't anything extraordinary compared to say ethernet, etc. But it's enough and it's the latency. Radio would be faster even than fiber optics even with minimal Network routing. But you can look it up. It's from 2023, and it was a big deal in the community back then. There's another messaging service that wants to run much higher up in UHF, and would it appear potentially
Re:
Score:
by
ISoldat53
( 977164 )
writes:
Add per trade fees.
Re:
Score:
by
WaffleMonster
( 969671 )
writes:
You had it, it's all about the latency. The absolute bandwidth is not so important necessarily. The data bandwidth over a 25 MHz carrier isn't anything extraordinary compared to say ethernet, etc. But it's enough and it's the latency. Radio would be faster even than fiber optics even with minimal Network routing. But you can look it up. It's from 2023, and it was a big deal in the community back then. There's another messaging service that wants to run much higher up in UHF, and would it appear potentially to interfere with a variety of other services, including starlinks control Network.
Bandwidth matters in terms of transmission delay. For example assume the wireless link is 10mbit and fiber link is 10gb. In this case transmission delay for a 30 byte message is the equivalent of giving the 10gb fiber link a half mile head start on propagation delay over a slower radio link.
Re:
Score:
by
rickb928
( 945187 )
writes:
It's been proven the that RF link latency is faster enough to justify the effort. Vp here is the issue, and fiber will never propagate as fast as free space radio.
Re:
Score:
by
kenh
( 9056 )
writes:
The idea of a stock market was never conceived to allow for trading faster than a bunch of people could do manually.
What kind of logic is that? We will artificially slow-down trading volume/speed to match what was possible 100 years ago because nobody thought they could make trades that fast? Do we have to hobble investors to the speed of manual traders on a trading floor because that was what the founders had in mind?
No. Let's not...
Re:
Score:
by
geekmux
( 1040042 )
writes:
The idea of a stock market was never conceived to allow for trading faster than a bunch of people could do manually.
What kind of logic is that? We will artificially slow-down trading volume/speed to match what was possible 100 years ago because nobody thought they could make trades that fast? Do we have to hobble investors to the speed of manual traders on a trading floor because that was what the founders had in mind?
No. Let's not...
If the status quo has helped create a stock market house of cards
again,
then perhaps
no action
isn’t the appropriate action. That’s how we welcome crashes, recessions, and depressions.
Again.
Moving at the speed of Greed is fine, as long as Corruption isn’t tagging along for the ride. If this results in manual traders simply
never
being fast enough at some point, then we have disrupted the model significantly. Not unlike allowing hedge trading in Capitalism. Betting
against
success i
Re: Add Random Latency to Trades
Score:
by
blue trane
( 110704 )
writes:
Why not deregulate the stock market and disconnect it from the real economy so traders can pursue their happiness in a sandbox while little guys have a strong basic income to buy real widgets?
Re:
Score:
by
geekmux
( 1040042 )
writes:
Why not deregulate the stock market and disconnect it from the real economy..
Not exactly sure how we do that when the stock market IS the economy.
Stocks. Funds. Trades. It’s all just numbers. Not even real cash. Just ones and zeros flying at HFT speeds. That in itself, should have fuck-all to do with the hard worker doing a physical job making a product in a manufacturing plant.
And yet if all those ones went to zeros and crashed, it would take millions of jobs. Shutter thousands of businesses. Instantly.
That used to be a market where you “invest”. We put th
Re:
Score:
by
RoccamOccam
( 953524 )
writes:
Instead of adding random delays (which might introduce their own workarounds), just quantize the trading intervals. All trades that occur within some time interval would use the stock value at the start of that interval. Make the interval one second -- that would be fair to everyone.
Re:Add Random Latency to Trades
Score:
, Insightful)
by
0123456
( 636235 )
writes:
on Tuesday December 16, 2025 @01:33PM (
#65861879
Imagine what the world could be like if we didn't take a large portion of the smartest kids in the country to have them work on how to skim 0.00001% of every financial transaction and instead employed them doing something useful instead.
History will see this as an absolutely insane waste of potential.
Parent
Share
Re: Add Random Latency to Trades
Score:
by
ArmoredDragon
( 3450605 )
writes:
History will see this as an absolutely insane waste of potential.
Unlikely. The math that we use today for cryptography was once seen as pointless. You speak as though the technology developed for ultra low latency digital communication will prove to be totally useless. And that the skills developed by people who created it will never transfer to anything else. These guys also appear to have created hardware layer 7 switching, which I have no reason to believe would end up being useless. Possibly, but I don't have a crystal ball.
And if you could accurately predict the fut
Re:
Score:
by
0123456
( 636235 )
writes:
Sure, it may provide some small value somewhere. But just as you don't have go to to the Moon to develop velcro, you don't have to create a giant financial casino to develop low-latency communications... you just invest the money on developing low-latency communications instead.
There is simply no world where it makes sense for the best and brightest kids to be spending their time figuring out how to take a tiny cut of transactions rather than building new things that will be useful to everyone.
Re: Add Random Latency to Trades
Score:
by
ArmoredDragon
( 3450605 )
writes:
Sure, it may provide some small value somewhere. But just as you don't have go to to the Moon to develop velcro, you don't have to create a giant financial casino to develop low-latency communications... you just invest the money on developing low-latency communications instead.
You're asking to throw money at something before there exists an application that you, under your sole direction, determine to be worthwhile. Then when somebody does need something you deem worthwhile, you're assuming they'll have the resources to develop it, and that it was developed in a way that's even useful for that application. Do you see the problem with that?
By the way, and this isn't intended as an insult, but this is the thinking behind fascism. That is, if the leadership determines that what you'
Re:
Score:
by
jenningsthecat
( 1525947 )
writes:
We, at least in the united states, live in a free society. Somebody doesn't get to decide that what you're doing isn't sufficiently German and shut it down.
Have you stuck your head out the window lately and had a look around? What you said used to true of the US, for the most part. That's no longer the case.
Re: Add Random Latency to Trades
Score:
by
ArmoredDragon
( 3450605 )
writes:
Then surely you can provide examples.
Re:
Score:
by
PsychoSlashDot
( 207849 )
writes:
Imagine what the world could be like if we didn't take a large portion of the smartest kids in the country to have them work on how to skim 0.00001% of every financial transaction and instead employed them doing something useful instead.
History will see this as an absolutely insane waste of potential.
I mean... where else could we put all those sociopaths? We've already got enough politicians and lawyers. Stock trading is perhaps the least harmful thing they could be doing.
Re:
Score:
by
geekmux
( 1040042 )
writes:
Imagine what the world could be like if we didn't take a large portion of the smartest kids in the country to have them work on how to skim 0.00001% of every financial transaction and instead employed them doing something useful instead.
History will see this as an absolutely insane waste of potential.
I mean... where else could we put all those sociopaths? We've already got enough politicians and lawyers. Stock trading is perhaps the least harmful thing they could be doing.
* looks at stock market stability and crash history *
How about we sic those sociopaths on someone
elses
market if you’re feeling that froggy.
Re:
Score:
by
buck-yar
( 164658 )
writes:
This isn't Office Space. Most transactions happen on dark pools not even on exchanges, so this all is moot. You don't see the values of these transactions, few do.
[youtube.com]
Recall the Willy trading bot scandal on Mtgox. Bots were trading back and forth the same coins, bidding the prices up (though later it was found the coins were probably fraudulent, as it had access to the backend of the database). What's to stop that from happening in the real world? Is that what is happening in t
Re: Add Random Latency to Trades
Score:
by
blue trane
( 110704 )
writes:
"History will see this as an absolutely insane waste of potential."
Why aren't they designing ever-more intrusive ads? Or ways to surveil? Or kill people?
Re:
Score:
by
SomePoorSchmuck
( 183775 )
writes:
Why? Does any of this affect you in any way?
The entirety of the world's wealth, resources, food supply, infrastructure, governments, etc. are embedded in stock markets which are linked together in such a way that a crash in one not only dominoes to all the others but can spark runaway reactions far beyond the original devaluation.
Everything these traders do affects all 8 billion humans on the planet.
The past 5 years and 10 months have been a nonstop wild ride of irreconcilable contradictions in whether we are, or or not, responsible for the social co
Re:
Score:
by
apparently
( 756613 )
writes:
Nearly everyone's retirement is tied up directly to the stock market, but sure, you're right -- their portfolio's aren't affected by the actions of other traders in the market
Re:
Score:
by
kenh
( 9056 )
writes:
Nearly everyone's retirement is tied up directly to the stock market, but sure, you're right -- their portfolio's aren't affected by the actions of other traders in the market
Uh, there is a large, large population of people on this planet that are not directly or indirectly invested in the stock market - for starters, many Americans entire retirement "plan" relies on nothing more than social security. How many Indians are invested in the stock market? How Many Chinese citizens? Russians? See, there are literally billions and billions of people not invested in any stock market...
Re:
Score:
by
apparently
( 756613 )
writes:
I'm sorry that you're on the spectrum and didn't understand that I was referencing American's 401K's, Ken.
Re:
Score:
by
geekmux
( 1040042 )
writes:
Nearly everyone's retirement is tied up directly to the stock market..
Unfortunately those with “steady” pension funds will find out how much of that retirement is tied up in the market.
RTO mandates had far more to do with sustaining corrupt commercial real estate prices than “collaboration”. I believe some even warned directly that failed commercial real estate investments would directly affect State-level pension funds. Wasn’t just CEOs who felt they had no choice but to RTO.
Re: Add Random Latency to Trades
Score:
by
ArmoredDragon
( 3450605 )
writes:
You'd only have a point if the RTO decision came from pressure from politicians, as in the case of San Francisco. I don't know what tells you that the executives of these companies want to pay building lease fees if they don't need to.
Re:
Score:
by
thegarbz
( 1787294 )
writes:
If you have a pension it affects you. Someone is skimming potential profits from the investment manager of your pension in ways that have nothing to do with the original intent of why this financial mechanism was developed, while providing no benefit to anyone in society.
YOU are affected, even if you didn't know it.
Re: Add Random Latency to Trades
Score:
by
blue trane
( 110704 )
writes:
In the old days, if you ran faster on the floor to get your trades filled, were you cheating the slower runners?
Re:
Score:
by
thegarbz
( 1787294 )
writes:
In the old days, if you ran faster on the floor to get your trades filled, were you cheating the slower runners?
No, because despite how fast you could run you weren't abusing a temporal anomaly in market distribution. You were making actual trades, not skimming of tiny price differences because that actually didn't work back in the day as market price changes were visible on boards to all before people managed to kick off the starting line for their sprint.
Re: Add Random Latency to Trades
Score:
by
drinkypoo
( 153816 )
writes:
Not random, no. Just add some latency period. That would do most of the job. Another solution is to penalize trades which are shorter than some time period. You can still make them but it will cost you. Either of these things would eliminate HFT.
Re:
Score:
by
Luthair
( 847766 )
writes:
If its consistent latency then we're in the same state we're in now where people are shaving nanoseconds to beat others. If its random then they can't reliably can an advantage by shaving time.
Re:
Score:
by
Moof123
( 1292134 )
writes:
I see no downside for legitimate trading to run everything on a fixed once a second, or heck once a minute clock. Everyone places their trades for a given window, then everything gets settled in time for the next window. High frequency traders are providing net negative value to everyone around them, just simplify it all.
Re:
Score:
by
AmiMoJo
( 196126 )
writes:
Say you have 100 shares available at a given price, and three people offer to buy them all in the same second. How do you handle that? You could give them all 33, and have one spare, as long as they are okay with only getting 33. Maybe you could have an "all or nothing" marker on the trade.
Random delays have the same issue, the buyer either has to accept an unknown price up front, or the seller has to accept cancelled trades and unpicking failed multi way deals.
The system was designed for human traders and
Re:
Score:
by
necro81
( 917438 )
writes:
An alternate (although mathematically similar) approach would be:
Select a unit of time: let's say five seconds. Call that the Trade Time Slice. Within each Trade Time Slice, all trades are settled equally. If you happen to arrive a nanosecond sooner than the next guy, but you're both within the same 5-s interval (Trade Time Slice), both trades get the same timestamp and price, rather than the strictly FIFO behavior we have now.
Yes, there'd still be an incentive to show up sooner than the next guy
Re:
Score:
by
tlhIngan
( 30335 )
writes:
An alternate (although mathematically similar) approach would be:
Select a unit of time: let's say five seconds. Call that the Trade Time Slice. Within each Trade Time Slice, all trades are settled equally. If you happen to arrive a nanosecond sooner than the next guy, but you're both within the same 5-s interval (Trade Time Slice), both trades get the same timestamp and price, rather than the strictly FIFO behavior we have now.
Except whether it's one second, 5 seconds, 60 seocnds, or whatever, that doesn't
Friction free engine accelerating to infinity
Score:
by
shanen
( 462549 )
writes:
Okay FP, but I think that's a weak approach. They would simply play the same game and try to devise new ways to cheat under the modified rules.
I think the fundamental problem is the lack of friction. There is no cost to trades, so more trades are always better. On that basis I think a transaction tax, even a tiny one, would be the best fundamental solution. Without friction the engine will accelerate without limit until it explodes. But I also think it's too late and the next market implosion will be much w
Re:
Score:
by
Luthair
( 847766 )
writes:
As far as I know exchanges are paid for trades executed on their market, its a key part of how they make money.
Re:
Score:
by
shanen
( 462549 )
writes:
I'm trusting Michael Lewis on this, but I don't think that applies to the members of the exchanges, and the high speed traders are members. The fees for trades are limited to the little suckers like you and me.
Well, also I've read some of the proposals for transaction fees, and none of them seem to make sense unless the current transactions are without fees.
Re:
Score:
by
dargaud
( 518470 )
writes:
Or better, tax trades under 1s at 90%. Under a day at 50%. Under a month at 20% and over 20 years at 0% (or something similar). Trades are meant to be a way to finance company growth, they are *not* meant to be some gambling game.
Re:
Score:
by
HiThere
( 15173 )
writes:
Pretty much agree, except that I'd use a continuous equation, probably a logistic function, have trades of over 20 years have a negative tax, and have trades of under 10 ns have a tax rate greater than 100%.
Re:
Score:
by
Fly Swatter
( 30498 )
writes:
Any stock investment should be required to be held one business day. I would say until the trade is settled but then these middlemen will move to go to instant settlement (or try hard).
Re: Add Random Latency to Trades
Score:
by
reanjr
( 588767 )
writes:
Random latency would have a very hard time getting regulatory approval.
Re:
Score:
by
jbmartin6
( 1232050 )
writes:
This would be an unfair practice. There are markets such as HKG that have a small transaction fee that does what I think you are after with this idea.
Can someone explain please?
Score:
by
newcastlejon
( 1483695 )
writes:
How are these traders anything but parasites? If I buy at 10 at midday then sell for 10.00001 a millisecond later just what meaningful investment has occurred? The company whose shares I buy doesn't even notice. What, not to put too fine a point on it, the fuck is the point of HFT besides making money for people who contribute nothing? I mean I've no particular love for traders in general but HFT is something else.
Re:
Score:
by
smooth wombat
( 796938 )
writes:
You answered your own question. These are not investors, they are traders. Their sole job is trade on the discrepancies inherit in the system. The faster they can buy low/sell high, the more trades they can do which in turn leads to more profits.
They may not make much on each trade, but do this multiple times each day and the numbers add up over a year.
Re:
Score:
by
sabbede
( 2678435 )
writes:
I think the point is making as much money as possible by doing as little as possible.
As much as I agree that this is not a good thing, but I don't think it's something that can be done away with without every large exchange agreeing to some sort of timing rule. No exchange will do it on its own, as too much capital will move to those that don't. No nation will block it on their own for the same reason.
So, a market solution where all exchanges agree to limit trades in some way (minute by minute or som
Re:
Score:
by
Krishnoid
( 984597 )
writes:
I think it helps shrink the bid/ask spread for smaller traders, and produces a *lot* more market liquidity. When the stock is "trading" near 10:
If you want to buy it at 10, you can buy it at 10 + 1E6 when you want, not stuck hoping that a few people will try to sell it to you at 10.25 when they feel like it.
Or if you put in a limit order at 10, *someone* will be there to sell it at 10 - 1E6 if it hits that price for a duration below the limits of human perception.
In either case, as a smaller trader
Use random numbers to
Score:
by
Tablizer
( 95088 )
writes:
put a slight but unknown delay in all transactions so as to make micro-slicing a worthless endeavor.
Re:
Score:
by
PPH
( 736903 )
writes:
There's already a
brokerage
[iexexchange.io] that strives to improve customer equity by passing all of its traffic through a fiber optic delay line.
The other option would be to detect some level of cancelled trades or dropped connections and, upon passing some threshold, lock out that account. It can be reset by having Bob Cratchit head down to the server room in the basement and manually log on to a console. Please be patient. The stairs are steep, Bob is old and has nothing more than an oil lamp to light his way.
Parasites
Score:
by
rsilvergun
( 571051 )
writes:
These are people who had absolutely no value they just take 5 to 10% of your income.
Anytime we want we could shut them down but we would have to change how we vote.
The next time you're getting upset because somebody gave their kid puberty blockers or somebody said happy holidays ask yourself how many hours a year you worked so that you could get upset about that.
The culture War costs you real money.
Re:
Score:
by
0123456
( 636235 )
writes:
> Anytime we want we could shut them down but we would have to change how we vote.
No major party wants to rein in the financial markets. I'm not sure about Harris, but I remember Clinton getting more donations from financial companies than Trump.
> The next time you're getting upset because somebody gave their kid puberty blockers or somebody said happy holidays ask yourself how many hours a year you worked so that you could get upset about that.
Imagine if the left had spent the last ten years pushing
The Democrats have consistently passed legislation
Score:
by
rsilvergun
( 571051 )
writes:
That reigns in Wall Street. And there are tons of people in the Democratic party pushing for more who are very high up most notably Elizabeth Warren.
This is not a both sides bads issue. One side let's Wall Street run roughshod over you and your family and the other side consistently regulates them stopping the cyclic economic crashes.
The problem is because you think both sides bad every 4 to 8 years you let the Republicans undo everything the Democrats did. So every few years we have another cyclic
Re:
Score:
by
geekmux
( 1040042 )
writes:
You really fucked up this cycle though. You didn't give Biden a full eight years to undo some of the damage. So we are going to get fucked and fucked hard.
You seem to have mistaken others for the brain-addled one who
chose to drop out of the fucking race
himself.
And if you don’t believe HE made that call, it only confirms how fucked we would have been with four more years under that administration. The hell were you granting that gift to? An autopen machine, or a cackling hyena drunk on word salad sauce?
Lets not also overlook the most egregious and arrogant display of blatant corruption when Democrat Nancy Pelosi actually had the fucking nerve to de
Re:
Score:
by
0123456
( 636235 )
writes:
You merely reiterate my point. The left don't care about reining in the financial markets, they care about castrating kids.
Re: Parasites
Score:
by
ArmoredDragon
( 3450605 )
writes:
You know what costs me real money? People like you leaching off of the welfare system. I paid enough taxes this year to buy a small house, effectively 40% of my income, despite only bringing in less than half of that in realized gains. And you know where some of that money went? To feed your fat face.
Clean up your own house before calling other people parasites.
Re:
Score:
by
dargaud
( 518470 )
writes:
How would you even know it went to him in particular ? Instead you can be sure it went to farmers who voted for Trump in the first place and got shafted by his shenanigans with tariffs... And looking at the deficit he's digging with a backhoe, you are not at the end of your complains...
Re: Parasites
Score:
by
ArmoredDragon
( 3450605 )
writes:
Tell that to somebody who actually gives a shit about trump.
Trump fucks kids
Score:
by
rsilvergun
( 571051 )
writes:
There's absolutely no point disproving bullshit posts like yours. You have Google you're just being a little pissant.
So instead of pointing out things you could easily find on Google I'm just going to remind everyone that Donald Trump is a pedophile and substantially large numbers of people here voted for that pedophile with full knowledge that he was a pedophile.
And if you make a pedophile president then what does that make you? I think you know. And remember Trump himself said he's going to hell.
Re: Trump fucks kids
Score:
by
ArmoredDragon
( 3450605 )
writes:
That's entertaining that you're telling me to use google when you've already proven that you don't. Shit, I alone called you out twice for making a claim, telling people to google it, and it turns out that google is saying exactly the opposite of what you just claimed. Who knows how many times you've done that when I wasn't even around.
Trump is a fucking asshole as well, something you have in common, which is probably why you two go to the same pedo orgies.
Moreover, the point still stands: Stop being a fuck
Re: Listen right wing troll a little critical
Score:
by
ArmoredDragon
( 3450605 )
writes:
I didn't vote for trump. rsilvergun probably did because he obviously loves to talk about fucking kids.
Note- no technical traders.
Score:
by
gurps_npc
( 621217 )
writes:
on Tuesday December 16, 2025 @01:11PM (
#65861797
Homepage
If you are trying to do what is called technical trading - looking at graphs to decide which day to buy or sell - this is why you do not become rich. The people that invented the math based trading 50 years ago have moved on to this super fast analysis and trading.
For those of you that think these a-holes do not contribute anything, they do provide liquidity. It keeps spreads tight - and lets you do option trading in between the bid and ask. (When the bid is 105 and the ask is 115, the technical traders snap up your options trade at 110 - but only if you do the limit order.)
Share
Eurex actively encourages something like this
Score:
by
locofungus
( 179280 )
writes:
I'm not exactly clear what the issue is. Corrupting the CRC at the end of the packet if you didn't want to send it was something that was talked about in the 90s. I don't know if anyone was doing it but it was certainly talked about.
Around that time, maybe a bit later, Eurex introduced discard addresses. This meant that you could start writing the packet onto the wire and if you changed your mind before you got to the destination address of the TCP header, you could write in the discard address instead of t
Re:
Score:
by
Z00L00K
( 682162 )
writes:
Feels like that trade would be ripe for a "man in the middle" attack so "Buy at ten, sell for five" randomly.
their argument is
Score:
by
ole_timer
( 4293573 )
writes:
that they add liquidity to the market
I remember this video
Score:
by
jacks smirking reven
( 909048 )
writes:
Tom Scott did a video on IEX, a smaller stock exchange that added 38 miles of fiber optic in line specifically to add latency to basically put a speed limit on trades so give humans a more even playing field:
How to slow down a stock exchange
[youtube.com]
Re:
Score:
by
whoever57
( 658626 )
writes:
Tom Scott did a video on IEX,
Is that the exchange that was originally called "Investors Exchange", and used the domain name: investor
sexchange
.com, until someone noticed?
Re:
Score:
by
jacks smirking reven
( 909048 )
writes:
Not only do they have built in latency they don't assume their investor's genders
A question about TCP/IP
Score:
by
Posthoc_Prior
( 7057067 )
writes:
The TCP/IP protocol seems to be an inherent barrier to high-speed trading. That is, the purpose of the protocol is to be a) redundant b) insure that the message is sequentially ordered c) error-checked. Specifically, if you have a hardware speed-up or place servers closer to the exchange -- or any other physical process that reduces the time of execution -- you still may be inherently slowed by the process of actually exchanging information between servers. So, was wondering how high-speed trading firms get
What I've always said about the internet
Score:
by
Locke2005
( 849178 )
writes:
on Tuesday December 16, 2025 @02:24PM (
#65862025
At some point you have to charge people per byte transferred, otherwise you inevitably experience "The Tragedy of the Commons." There is a simple economic solution to people bombing the exchange with useless traffic. A more complicated solution would be to regard it as a denial-of-service attack.
Share
Re: What I've always said about the internet
Score:
by
blue trane
( 110704 )
writes:
Is calling added liquidity at a tiny cost for investors in a market that keeps setting record highs really a tragedy?
Value Extracted From the Economy
Score:
by
John Allsup
( 987 )
writes:
I'm no economist. But the way I see it, companies making 100m's out of such trading are extracting 100m's of realisable value from the economy while contributing nothing materially back to it. What does society gain in return for the 100m's these traders make from trading?
Tax that shit
Score:
by
Nkwe
( 604125 )
writes:
How about a small percentage tax on every trade? Accomplishes "taxing the rich", reducing incentives to high frequency trading, and raises revenue.
we need brakes
Score:
by
argStyopa
( 232550 )
writes:
IIRC it was Buffet who suggested a 100% tax on gains from any stock traded less than 1 year from purchase.
Hell, even if they put a 1 month buffer, I think it would help.
Make buyers hold securities or stocks
Score:
by
Tony Isaac
( 1301187 )
writes:
This problem goes away if the law changes to require that purchasers of securities or stocks *hold* them for at least, say, one day. Or better yet, six months. Do that, and suddenly investors will start thinking about long-term returns, instead of microsecond returns. And that might lead them to think about the long-term health of companies. What a concept!
Everyone knows the stock market is a scam, but....
Score:
by
paulxnuke
( 624084 )
writes:
I remember having to phone a stock broker, who would eventually enter the order on his terminal. Then we got direct online trading, much faster (and cheaper.)
Meanwhile, big companies computer trade on a millisecond scale, with no humans involved (and probably pay less per trade than I do, and probably get around inconveniences like the delay for their nanosecond autotrades to settle.)
Anyone who makes money in the stock market is skimming it from someone else. I understand that, but why hand money to others
just reeks
Score:
by
invisiblefireball
( 10371234 )
writes:
seems like a good idea would be to make the whole thing illegal
i mean the stock exchange
one could discuss it as an irredeemably gamed system which requires anyone subject to it to lie if telling the truth would hurt investors, resulting in, for example, the plastics recycling debacle of the last forty years or whatever
but everyone already knows about that and decided its ok i guess
how much obvious crime does there have to be in one spot before YOU stop participating?
Billion vs milli
Score:
by
Mr Europe
( 657225 )
writes:
What is the "Billionth of seconds" when talking about milliseconds ?! Milli is 1 / 1000 and billion is 1 / 1 000 000 000 (in US).
There is a market that delays ...
Score:
by
Qbertino
( 265505 )
writes:
... trades by passing then through a large spool of fiber before they go into the server, deliberately slowing trades down. It's quite popular with mid-range enterprises and corporations. I'd be trading by stocks there if be I were to IPO a corporation of mine.
Related Links
Top of the:
day
week
month
243
comments
'USB-A Isn't Going Anywhere, So Stop Removing the Port'
209
comments
New Book Argues Hybrid Schedules 'Don't Work', Return-to-Office Brings Motivation and Learning
200
comments
'A Black Hole': America's New Graduates Discover a Dismal Job Market
187
comments
Toxic Workplaces Are Worsening: 80% of U.S. Workers Say Their Job Hurts Mental Health
166
comments
WSJ: Tech-Industry Workers Now 'Miserable', Fearing Layoffs, Working Longer Hours
next
McKinsey Plots Thousands of Job Cuts in Slowdown for Consulting Industry
26
comments
previous
Tech Giants Can't Agree On What To Call Their AI-Powered Glasses
39
comments
Slashdot Top Deals
Excessive login or logout messages are a sure sign of senility.
Close
Working...