I think some of the complaints about the permanence of temporary solutions are unwarranted in this case. This is only for the nightly branch of the compiler. Most Rust users run the stable compiler[1] (a different build) which is wholly incapable of using this feature.
There are definitely niche features that languish in nightly for years, but this initiative to improve the Try trait and ? operator will have broad appeal and I imagine a good number of people willing to push forward to get it stabilized, at which point they will finally decide on the proper name.
Sounds like the domain owner threw out what he thought was a preposterous price that no one would accept, in attempt to get the buyer to leave him alone.
Little did he know that Jump Trading has already spent $300 million propping up the legitimacy of this blockchain.
How many organizations move either between clouds or off cloud entirely? I imagine for the former there’s some import tools in order to poach customers.
But between all the advanced proprietary software solutions and exorbitant egress fees, moving off cloud entirely is rather difficult.
I think you’re overlooking the part of their statements where they have repeatedly emphasized investor protections.
Some of the different ETFs are filed under different legislations, and the SEC claim that the Investment Company Act of 1940 provided better investor protections than the Securities Act of 1933, but I’m unclear of what particular stipulations make that so.
> But somehow an actual plain, direct, spot ETF that can provide redemptions to authorized participants is the one that’s not allowed.
Custodianship is probably why they’ve rejected direct spot ETFs that own real bitcoins. It would be disastrous if hacked. There’d be no restitution for investors.
With futures-based bitcoin products, no one is actually holding bitcoins. It’s cash settled between the long and shorts based on a published closing price. So the BITO ETF has no risk of being irreparably hacked.
> That might looks suspicious sure, but there may be other factors (not reflected in the book) influencing a change of desire on my part
I think your example would easily satisfy regulators. But you have to have the logging with real time stamps to prove it or you need to be able to reconstruct the internal state by replaying the market data against that version of the code.
Same goes for other pairs trades or other non-book signals. For any automated trading on regulated exchanges, you need to be able to explain to regulators why you chose to send an order. Otherwise you’re basically admitting that you don’t understand / have control over your algorithm, which they will obviously object to.
> I've never come across a strategy that responds to volume changes far from the BBO.
I agree it’s unlikely that a deep quote will provoke an immediate action. But sustained changes in the book will over time get aggregated into moving averages etc and influence behaviors in the long term (for whatever timescale may be appropriate).
> Quantity change far away from the action is mostly noise.
I agree that individual quotes are noisy, and it’s hard to extract signal from the noise. A limit order book by definition is supposed to quantify an aggregated demand to buy/sell, and thus it should be meaningful to aggregate over it to construct a distribution. Spoofing distorts that.
No one gets investigated for spoofing for sending a single order. It’s a persistent pattern that stands out from the noise.
The SEC regulates the exact same thing for US stocks. And nearly every other country / regulated exchange has similar rules.
When you post an order to any exchange, you are doing so under the agreement that it is legitimate and that you actually want to be filled at that price. Obviously a participant’s desire desire to be filled at a specific price can change over time, so you’re allowed to cancel orders as well. That makes it difficult to detect and prove that a participant is acting maliciously. But if the BBO isn’t really moving and you keep posting/cancelling orders all day in certain patterns then eventually you’re going to get investigated and told to explain your behavior. And that’s where you might struggle to justify things.
> Effectively it means anyone cancelling an order has to worry that their action could be interpreted as "spoofing"
On human time scales, I think you’re vastly overstating the relevance of accidentally spoofing. For automated trading, yes you have to be careful that your signal doesn’t flicker right on the edge of your threshold. Sometimes that means you need to purposefully limit your order entry or sometimes it’s just a matter of improving your signal.
> The only ones this type of enforcement "protects" are are those who naively think they've discovered a strong trading signal based on order volumes away from the BBO.
I would say most of high frequency trading, which is the primary means of market making these days, relies on the state of the order book as a primary signal. Sure they incorporate other outside information, but when you’re trying to be the fastest, the only data you have to work with that is fast enough is the what the exchange says the order book is. No body’s paying attention to $1 quotes on a $10,000 stock. But a couple dozen price levels from the BBO on GOOG might easily be less 1% away and maybe spoofing there at large sizes might be enough to negatively affect HFT and cause spreads to widen, which hurts everyone.
Basically these regulation exists because only legitimate activity is allowed. Trying to fool other market participants (spoofing) or trying to slow down specific matching engines (quote stuffing) are obviously not legitimate.
No. If you are still conscious (it takes <30 seconds before losing consciousness) then you haven’t experienced sufficient oxygen deprivation to have severe permanent side effects. Brain death takes several minutes of sustained hypoxia. If you’re unconscious then obviously there’s no cancelling by your own will.
> There is significant shuffling of interviewers and schedules. One almost has to be on-call to be able to react quickly.
This is a sign that an organization is doing too many fucking interviews. When you get scheduled for an interview every day of the week, you are quite literally forced to stop caring about the impact of cancelling interviews last minute. The recruiters may try to find an alternate interviewer, but often the candidate gets shafted. I never realized how common forcing the candidate to reschedule was (I had never experienced it while interviewing) but it happens to probably half a dozen candidates per day at my 600 person company.
Stripe notoriously went through a “hyper growth” (doubling headcount year over year when already past several hundred employees) phase for a number of years. That is an unspeakable torture to subject an organization to.
There are definitely niche features that languish in nightly for years, but this initiative to improve the Try trait and ? operator will have broad appeal and I imagine a good number of people willing to push forward to get it stabilized, at which point they will finally decide on the proper name.
[1]: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2020/12/16/rust-survey-2020.html