[2017-02-20]3 exits for Chinese Bitcoin HFT traders with millions of funds

[hl5460]

In the past few days, the transaction volume of big three took a nose dive. For instance, OKCoin had 3.7 million coins exchanged on 5th January and 4,329 on 19th Feb as per sosobtc . The “big three” are losing their most precious assets as an exchange: traders. According to a report on WSJ China , high frequency traders (HFT) are running away from Chinese market with millions of funds out of panic or the need to liquidate their funds. They found 3 outlets for their money.

http://news.8btc.com/3-exits-for-chinese-bitcoin-hft-traders-with-millions-of-funds

[1715040823]

1715040823

[1715040823]

1715040823

[Idaho]

It's far from clear whether HFTs benefit anyone other than themselves.

[DooMAD]

High Frequency Trading is a legacy finance parasite, not welcome in Bitcoin in my view.  Any attempt to stamp it out in the fiat world is greeted with the usual "too big to fail" mindset.  Artificial volume only leads to speculative bubbles.  One only has to mention 'Willy Bot' to conjure images of all the things wrong with automated trading in cryptoland.  

Also, I love how the article calls for more KYC and even going as far as to cite OTC as a problem in some mythical la-la land.  

I can't tell what the author is smoking and I definitely don't want any.  If anything, we should be encouraging more peer-to-peer trading and less centralised exchange, not less P2P trading and more centralised exchange, like the article suggests.  It's completely ass-backwards.

[cr1776]

...
Also, I love how the article calls for more KYC and even going as far as to cite OTC as a problem in some mythical la-la land.  

I can't tell what the author is smoking and I definitely don't want any.  If anything, we should be encouraging more peer-to-peer trading and less centralised exchange, not less P2P trading and more centralised exchange, like the article suggests.  It's completely ass-backwards.

Have to agree here.  The issue isn't decentralization, the issue is centralization.  Most notably centralized control by the government.

[1Referee]

I can't tell what the author is smoking and I definitely don't want any.  If anything, we should be encouraging more peer-to-peer trading and less centralised exchange, not less P2P trading and more centralised exchange, like the article suggests.  It's completely ass-backwards.

It's bias and financial compensation, to write articles the way people behind the scenes want them to be. It's something that nowadays seem to be a hot thing to pump low quality obviously sponsored articles into the net. I fully agree that we should stimulate to cut ties with centralized incentives when it comes to exchanging Bitcoin. But then again, the far majority of the people are nothing more than sheeps following the rest, and thus will continue to value current incompetent and centralized exchanges.

[hl5460]

High Frequency Trading is a legacy finance parasite, not welcome in Bitcoin in my view.  Any attempt to stamp it out in the fiat world is greeted with the usual "too big to fail" mindset.  Artificial volume only leads to speculative bubbles.  One only has to mention 'Willy Bot' to conjure images of all the things wrong with automated trading in cryptoland.  

Also, I love how the article calls for more KYC and even going as far as to cite OTC as a problem in some mythical la-la land.  

I can't tell what the author is smoking and I definitely don't want any.  If anything, we should be encouraging more peer-to-peer trading and less centralised exchange, not less P2P trading and more centralised exchange, like the article suggests.  It's completely ass-backwards.

Thanks for reminder. The article is about what is happening in China. Maybe central bank doesn't realize they just help decentralize bitcoin trading.

[e-coinomist]

It's far from clear whether HFTs benefit anyone other than themselves.

That, and piggybacking on our backs. The other (all of them) tradesites funding their services by taking smallish fees (0.2%) create a spread on their orderbooks, caused by that fee. It doesn't make any sense to trade on a high frequency and paying a fee ... on a high frequency. Just paying 100x 0.2% a minute are like ... do the math (my brain hurts!) should look like radioactive decay line on trade portfolio. Exponential growthshrinkage.
Effectively blocking out any HFT approaches.

But... if one exchange plays defect and offers Zerofees, all other tradesites are creating an opportunity for HFTs on that site.
Guess who pays that bill.
We have to decide for what we want.