You would change the rules, but I think the result would largely remain the same. As a market participant with the fastest access to data from other markets, news, and similar sources, as well as low order entry latency, you would still be able to profit from information asymmetry.
Imagine that a company announces the approval of its new vaccine a few milliseconds before the periodic trade occurs. As an HFT firm, you have the technology to enter, cancel, or modify your orders before the periodic auction takes place, while less sophisticated players remain oblivious to what just happened. The same applies to price movements on venues trading the same instrument, its derivatives, or even correlated assets in different parts of the world.
On the other hand, you risk increasing price volatility (especially in cases where there is an imbalance between buyers and sellers during the periodic auction) and making markets less liquid.
IntelligentCross Midpoint (a darkpool) is a better example, since it actually does matching periodically every couple of milliseconds [1]. IEX just introduces additional latency for everyone.
It's actually the other way around. As a big fund looking to trade a large number of shares in the public market, you'll quickly realize that the market tends to move away from you, and statistically, you're more likely to get a bad deal than a good one. Even if you try to be smart about execution by splitting your orders into chunks, randomizing order sizes, and similar tactics, there is still a huge information asymmetry between you and more sophisticated players. In many cases, they can classify your orders based on different characteristics of your order flow (such as latency profile), distinguishing them from so-called toxic flow from other HFT firms.
The purpose of these private rooms is to separate your orders from those players so that you trade against other uninformed parties, making your chances of getting a good or bad deal closer to 50/50.
I have absolutely no idea how this works in Java, but in C++, there are a few reasons you need std::atomic here:
1. You need to make sure that modifying the producer/consumer position is actually atomic. This may end up being the same instruction that the compiler would use for modifying a non-atomic variable, but that will depend on your target architecture and the size of the data type. Without std::atomic, it may also generate multiple instructions to implement that load/store or use an instruction which is non-atomic at the CPU level. See [1] for more information.
2. You're using positions for synchronization between the producer and consumer. When incrementing the reader position, you're basically freeing a slot for the producer, which means that you need to make sure all reads happen before you do it. When incrementing the producer position, you're indicating that the slot is ready to be consumed, so you need to make sure that all the stores to that slot happen before that. Things may go wrong here due to reordering by the compiler or by the CPU [2], so you need to instruct both that a certain memory ordering is required here. Reordering by the compiler can be prevented using a compiler-level memory barrier - asm volatile("" ::: "memory"). Depending on your CPU architecture, you may or may not need to add a memory barrier instruction as well to prevent reordering by the CPU at runtime. The good news is that std::atomic does all that for you if you pick the right memory ordering, and by default, it uses the strongest one (sequentially-consistent ordering). I think in this particular case you could relax the constraints a bit and use memory_order_acquire on the consumer side and memory_order_release on the producer side [3].
It's not easy to get data structures like this right in C++. There are a couple of problems with your implementation of the queue.
Memory accesses can be reordered by both the compiler and the CPU, so you should use std::atomic for your producer and consumer positions to get the barriers described in the original LMAX Disruptor paper.
In the get method, you're returning a pointer to the element within the queue after bumping the consumer position (which frees the slot for the producer), so it can get overwritten while the user is accessing it.
And then your producer and consumer positions will most likely end up in the same cache line, leading to false sharing.