Havelock Investments - Exchange feedback/comments

[explorer]

Actually the real solution would be to charge a low fee for every order placed, whether it is fulfilled or not or canceled.

Or just for cancellations.  Or after a limit.  Abuser pay, as it were.

Trying to recall think there was an option like that on BTCT or maybe not if so then it would be a nice feature to add to havelock

IIRC they had higher trade fees for non-2FA accounts?  I don't recall any order or cancellation fees.  Of course, that was before breakfast this morning, and therefore somewhat fuzzy 

[Swordsoffreedom]

Actually the real solution would be to charge a low fee for every order placed, whether it is fulfilled or not or canceled.

Or just for cancellations.  Or after a limit.  Abuser pay, as it were.

Trying to recall think there was an option like that on BTCT or maybe not if so then it would be a nice feature to add to havelock

IIRC they had higher trade fees for non-2FA accounts?  I don't recall any order or cancellation fees.  Of course, that was before breakfast this morning, and therefore somewhat fuzzy 

Ah right that was it to promote more secure authentication only the 2FA sometimes timed out on you more often than not
So your right guess it hasn't occurred yet fees for using the bots rapidly since some trades should be allowed at no fee just a lot of them at one time etc.

[explorer]

Actually the real solution would be to charge a low fee for every order placed, whether it is fulfilled or not or canceled.

Or just for cancellations.  Or after a limit.  Abuser pay, as it were.

Trying to recall think there was an option like that on BTCT or maybe not if so then it would be a nice feature to add to havelock

IIRC they had higher trade fees for non-2FA accounts?  I don't recall any order or cancellation fees.  Of course, that was before breakfast this morning, and therefore somewhat fuzzy 

Ah right that was it to promote more secure authentication only the 2FA sometimes timed out on you more often than not
So your right guess it hasn't occurred yet fees for using the bots rapidly since some trades should be allowed at no fee just a lot of them at one time etc.

Or an API fee. If you are using it to good effect, perhaps you'd like to pay for it's upgrading before it brings the house down 

[Lohoris]

Or an API fee.

Nope.
That would be silly.
The point of APIs is to prevent bots from using anyway the services through "workarounds", i.e. lessening the server load.
If you charge for using the API, bots would be rewritten to use the same web interface as the users, increasing much the load on the server.

That's why I suggested asking a fixed fee for any operation, be it user or bot, API or not.

[dyask]

Or an API fee.

Nope.
That would be silly.
The point of APIs is to prevent bots from using anyway the services through "workarounds", i.e. lessening the server load.
If you charge for using the API, bots would be rewritten to use the same web interface as the users, increasing much the load on the server.

That's why I suggested asking a fixed fee for any operation, be it user or bot, API or not.

Charging for any cancel after 10 cancels in a day would probably fix the issue.   Most traders would be fine but bot that are just putting orders in front by a few satoshis would be soon stopped.

[Lohoris]

Charging for any cancel after 10 cancels in a day would probably fix the issue. Most traders would be fine but bot that are just putting orders in front by a few satoshis would be soon stopped.

That would be fine too, I agree.

[junkonator]

Charging for any cancel after 10 cancels in a day would probably fix the issue. Most traders would be fine but bot that are just putting orders in front by a few satoshis would be soon stopped.

That would be fine too, I agree.

I don't think that would fix anything. This will just lead to multiple accounts.

[Lohoris]

Charging for any cancel after 10 cancels in a day would probably fix the issue. Most traders would be fine but bot that are just putting orders in front by a few satoshis would be soon stopped.

That would be fine too, I agree.

I don't think that would fix anything. This will just lead to multiple accounts.

You would have to fund all of them, and forfeit the volume discounts.
And keep an increasily complex accounting, 2FAs, etc.

[jjdub7]

Or, as we all overlook the obvious...

Havelock admins, you could buy a few more powerful servers to handle the increased workload.  We're the ones paying the fees, so it can be assumed the revenue is there to do something like this.  This could be very beneficial, especially in ensuring future growth of the exchange.

What is this, Healthcare.gov?  (lol nvm its a Canadian exchange, of course you already have a working healthcare system)

[Lohoris]

Or, as we all overlook the obvious...

Havelock admins, you could buy a few more powerful servers to handle the increased workload.

Scaling isn't easy, and this solution doesn't scale well: more powerful servers will offer a better service, which will in turn gather new users, including new bots.
The real solution have to hit the real problem: the real problem is that some users, which happen to be bots, are posting too many orders too fast... so the real solution is to disincentivize to place too many orders too fast. Quite easy, actually.

[junkonator]

The limit of 600 (or is it 300 now?) per 10 minutes is really not very low. Every action a bot takes using the API is counted for this. So for one order it's possible that there are at least 2-3 API calls involved. imho the site should be able to handle this.

[jjdub7]

Or, as we all overlook the obvious...

Havelock admins, you could buy a few more powerful servers to handle the increased workload.

Scaling isn't easy, and this solution doesn't scale well: more powerful servers will offer a better service, which will in turn gather new users, including new bots.
The real solution have to hit the real problem: the real problem is that some users, which happen to be bots, are posting too many orders too fast... so the real solution is to disincentivize to place too many orders too fast. Quite easy, actually.

I fail to see how adding more liquidity and closing the atrocious spreads on half these assets is a problem though.  Granted, if everyone and their brother is just programming scripts to fill the spread that fight one another for endless hours...that's specifically where we're running into problems.  I don't think any of the codes running BB analyses are triggering the DDoS-like meltdowns.  I do think the CloudFlare portal is burnt into my retinas at this point.

[Lohoris]

I fail to see how adding more liquidity and closing the atrocious spreads on half these assets is a problem though.

If resources were infinitely fast and free, it wouldn't be a problem.
Since each query comes with a cost, then you should limit the queries.
Again, pretty simple.

[jjdub7]

I fail to see how adding more liquidity and closing the atrocious spreads on half these assets is a problem though.

If resources were infinitely fast and free, it wouldn't be a problem.
Since each query comes with a cost, then you should limit the queries.
Again, pretty simple.

There are solutions to the problem that could both increase revenues to the exchange and manage the query problem.  I'm saying that Havelock should take their user data and look into which solution or combination of solutions would be the most beneficial.

For instance, burnside's BTC-TC had a Litecoin equivalent, LTC-Global, that seemed to do pretty well.  Similar to the Havelock exchange fund, HIF, burnside had an exchange asset denominated in LTC.  If doing something like adding BTC-LTC support and LTC-denominated assets would increase exchange revenues (twentyseventy could do nicely to start an LDD) while allowing admins to mitigate the query problems, then it might be a solution worth looking into.

Personally, I like Havelock as an asset exchange platform.  A good number of potential users on this forum seem to be wary of using the site due to the stability concerns.  I'd like to see Havelock continue to develop into a well-known and well-respected exchange, especially as the SEC is expected to rule (i.e. clarify their current policies in line with the passed legislation) on crowdfunded equity within the coming months.

[Lohoris]

A good number of potential users on this forum seem to be wary of using the site due to the stability concerns.

Well, I am wary because of the very scammy IPO they posted.

[dyask]

Well now the site seems to have been down for hours.  At least the part that allows you to log in.   A few hours ago I tried to modify my B.Mine sell order but I have no idea what is going on.    

I've tried twitter and the IRC channel ... both without response.   What timezone do they operate in?

[Jayjay04]

I have the same problem, cannot connect to the website, always ''CSRF Failure''.

[trek27]

Yes, something's definitely wrong.

[jjdub7]

The websocket wasn't pushing trades to the orderbooks last night, so I think the site's just down for maintenance.  Emailed support and got a response 10 min later saying they're working on it.

[dyask]

The websocket wasn't pushing trades to the orderbooks last night, so I think the site's just down for maintenance.  Emailed support and got a response 10 min later saying they're working on it.

You got a prompt response because you are in a timezone that overlaps when they were working on the problem.   When I ran into the issues, they were probably sleeping.