[OFFICIAL]Bitfinex.com first Bitcoin P2P lending platform for leverage trading

[fdiini]

We should always be aware that Bitfinex is not the only site for margin trading, there is also icbit.se, although their futures-based system takes some effort to understand.  It is always worth it to compare the swap rate at Bitfinex with the contango at icbit.  Right now their contango is equivalent to 0.13 %/day.  You need to factor in that icbit has low volume and no stop-loss mechanism, you risk to get caught in an unfavourable position.  On the other hand, the price spikes are smaller (and on purpose limited within a trading period), so they do not have the problem of sudden spikes that can trigger stop-losses in a way you regret later.

I think a bit more competition between the two sites would benefit us all.

Don't forget trust is an important factor when it comes to exchange.

[wilfried]

hy, when using
https://api.bitfinex.com/v1/trades/btcusd
there are missing tids. are those cancelled orders?

Code:

{"timestamp":1406496194,"tid":2420632,
{"timestamp":1406496193,"tid":2420631,
{"timestamp":1406496147,"tid":2420627,

[bjornw]

hy, when using
https://api.bitfinex.com/v1/trades/btcusd
there are missing tids. are those cancelled orders?

Code:

{"timestamp":1406496194,"tid":2420632,
{"timestamp":1406496193,"tid":2420631,
{"timestamp":1406496147,"tid":2420627,

Those "missing" tid are transaactions done in other currency pairs: ltcusd drkbtc etc.

[BitBits]

Sorry for quoting my own question (it is getting buried), I just wanted to make sure Bitfinex team sees it.

Question to Bitfinex technical team about "hidden orders":
It used to be that hidden orders would be executed with the price not originally set, but with the one offered by counter-party. What was happening is that if let's say a hidden order was a sell for $600, but there is a bid for $600.5, seller (owner of hidden order) would get offered $600.5. In this case the "hidden order" indeed remained hidden. To compensate for such advantage, hidden orders were also having lower than regular priority in terms of their execution (meaning that hidden orders are executed after the regular ones, or per some fractional algorithm, you guys came up with).

Right now, hidden orders can be VERY easily discovered. Thus, if you don't see the last execution price matching current bid/ask, you found the "hidden order", so it instantly becomes no longer "hidden". Execution priority right now is also the same as for regular orders, so you know that until hidden order for that particular price "runs out", price is not going to move. The only thing which remains "hidden" right now is the size of such order. For this reason, people may even not want to place their orders, but wait until situation becomes more clear. Moreover, since the use of hidden orders is a rather heavily used feature at Bitfinex (I know this for a fact from personal experience), traders may be discouraged from more active trading and this in turn may be one of the reasons which makes our current trading so incredibly "thin". We have some $30 mln in active swaps, yet at times just a few BTCs can move the price several points.

I really liked the old model a lot better, mainly because such orders (even if they are big) did not interfere with natural price movements that much. I also have a strong feeling that the old model made trade patterns look a lot "smoother" (so to speak). Besides, and as I am sure you know, there are also a lot of concerns out there about order book being very "thin", so the observers out there are comparing our (comparatively speaking) "thin" order book with that huge borrowed swaps volume and naturally concluding that the flash-crash is imminent. If only our hidden orders would be truly hidden as in earlier days, I am pretty sure that there will be a lot more of them on the order book on both sides and we will have curves instead of current rectangles in the trading patterns. Right now even the 10 - 15 BTC orders look (and often behave) like "walls".

Were there any significant reasons for the change in structure of hidden orders?

Thanks.

[adaseb]

Hello

I just joined. I have a few questions.

I want to short BTC/USD.


So deposited BTC into my account and when I tried selling it on the "EXCHANGE" column, it gave me an error.

When I sold it on the "MARGIN", it actually worked.

But I am wondering why isn't it letting me use the "EXCHANGE" option since I own the BTC and want to sell it and get USD. Then buy the BTC back with my USD and have BTC again.

You have three different wallets: trading, exchange, and deposit.  To sell for USD, you must move the coins to the exchange wallet.  Click "Manage Wallets" button on lower right-hand column.
By default, coin deposits go into the trading wallet.

I understand. Got it. It works.

Thanks for your help!

[wilfried]

hy!
this does only show recent trades, why??

orderspayloadobject = {
         'request':'/v1/trades/btcusd',
         'nonce':str(long(time.time() * 100000)),         
         'timestamp':'1374943149',                     #Only show trades at or after this timestamp.
         'limit_trades':int('50')               #Limit the number of trades returned.
         }

thx

[nrd525]

It is pretty puzzling that the USD swap rate is falling so slow.  With the current bid/asks - I'd expect it to be around 0.08%/day, and to fall by at least 0.01%/day.

[TwinWinNerD]

It is pretty puzzling that the USD swap rate is falling so slow.  With the current bid/asks - I'd expect it to be around 0.08%/day, and to fall by at least 0.01%/day.

There are some big whales going longer and longer if my analysis is right. They took huge amounts of loans.

[picobit]

We should always be aware that Bitfinex is not the only site for margin trading, there is also icbit.se, although their futures-based system takes some effort to understand.  It is always worth it to compare the swap rate at Bitfinex with the contango at icbit.  Right now their contango is equivalent to 0.13 %/day.  You need to factor in that icbit has low volume and no stop-loss mechanism, you risk to get caught in an unfavourable position.  On the other hand, the price spikes are smaller (and on purpose limited within a trading period), so they do not have the problem of sudden spikes that can trigger stop-losses in a way you regret later.

I think a bit more competition between the two sites would benefit us all.

We should always be aware that Bitfinex is not the only site for margin trading, there is also icbit.se, although their futures-based system takes some effort to understand.  It is always worth it to compare the swap rate at Bitfinex with the contango at icbit.  Right now their contango is equivalent to 0.13 %/day.  You need to factor in that icbit has low volume and no stop-loss mechanism, you risk to get caught in an unfavourable position.  On the other hand, the price spikes are smaller (and on purpose limited within a trading period), so they do not have the problem of sudden spikes that can trigger stop-losses in a way you regret later.

I think a bit more competition between the two sites would benefit us all.

Are you kidding me?

Ente

He forgot that he was logged into his sock puppet

I am not RDMINER.  He must have copied my post - or tried to quote me and messed up.

[adaseb]

Is there anyway to do a "stop-loss" when I sold my BTC on the "EXCHANGE" not "MARGIN TRADE".

Basically when it goes above a certain price, I want to do a market buy.

I did "EXCHANGE" because I don't need the extra leverage.

[TwinWinNerD]

Is there anyway to do a "stop-loss" when I sold my BTC on the "EXCHANGE" not "MARGIN TRADE".

Basically when it goes above a certain price, I want to do a market buy.

I did "EXCHANGE" because I don't need the extra leverage.

Just choose the "stop" buy order type.

[PirateHatForTea]

RDMiner seems to randomly quote other peoples posts - I think it may be a bot designed to confuse.

[mjr]

Sorry for quoting my own question (it is getting buried), I just wanted to make sure Bitfinex team sees it.

Question to Bitfinex technical team about "hidden orders":
It used to be that hidden orders would be executed with the price not originally set, but with the one offered by counter-party. What was happening is that if let's say a hidden order was a sell for $600, but there is a bid for $600.5, seller (owner of hidden order) would get offered $600.5. In this case the "hidden order" indeed remained hidden. To compensate for such advantage, hidden orders were also having lower than regular priority in terms of their execution (meaning that hidden orders are executed after the regular ones, or per some fractional algorithm, you guys came up with).

Right now, hidden orders can be VERY easily discovered. Thus, if you don't see the last execution price matching current bid/ask, you found the "hidden order", so it instantly becomes no longer "hidden". Execution priority right now is also the same as for regular orders, so you know that until hidden order for that particular price "runs out", price is not going to move. The only thing which remains "hidden" right now is the size of such order. For this reason, people may even not want to place their orders, but wait until situation becomes more clear. Moreover, since the use of hidden orders is a rather heavily used feature at Bitfinex (I know this for a fact from personal experience), traders may be discouraged from more active trading and this in turn may be one of the reasons which makes our current trading so incredibly "thin". We have some $30 mln in active swaps, yet at times just a few BTCs can move the price several points.

I really liked the old model a lot better, mainly because such orders (even if they are big) did not interfere with natural price movements that much. I also have a strong feeling that the old model made trade patterns look a lot "smoother" (so to speak). Besides, and as I am sure you know, there are also a lot of concerns out there about order book being very "thin", so the observers out there are comparing our (comparatively speaking) "thin" order book with that huge borrowed swaps volume and naturally concluding that the flash-crash is imminent. If only our hidden orders would be truly hidden as in earlier days, I am pretty sure that there will be a lot more of them on the order book on both sides and we will have curves instead of current rectangles in the trading patterns. Right now even the 10 - 15 BTC orders look (and often behave) like "walls".

Were there any significant reasons for the change in structure of hidden orders?

Thanks.

This is usually the case with hidden orders. In traditional exchanges, many times people "ping" a certain price to try and discover if an order is there. This is like trying to buy 100 shares of a stock from a dark pool. If you are filled you can imagine that there is more there waiting to be filled. There is unfortunately no way to stop that, besides using an "all or nothing" order type. Although the order is hidden, if someone asks for coins, and it matches a hidden order it will be matched. I do think that there are legitimate reasons to prefer a hidden order, and it works well with certain algorithms which are trying to fill a larger order over time. It also might help smooth out the actual executions over time, although it does result in an apparently thinner orderbook. At the end of the day, it just depends on what you are trying to accomplish. We are always looking into more advanced order types.

[mjr]

BFX, you have to change something about the way swaps are taken. Since some time my "Swaps currently provided" list is cluttered up with dozens upon dozens of absolutely miniscule offers which guarranteedly nobody took out on their own but are part of some faulty matching algorithm. An offer of approx 6000 led to 3 swaps in the range of 2500, 1000, 1500 and then over thirty swaps at a dollar or even cents. The highlight is single swap undistinguishably from a single cent. Something like $0.01XXX3 Why is this happening? This is not only cluttering up the "swaps currently provided" list but also and much more importantly the "swap history" pages which get more and more inflated by the day.

Months ago, Giancarlo wrote about this when the behavior changed:

Lets assume I took five $10 swaps some time ago. You have a $100 offer up, which is the best offer, and with a better rate than my initial swaps. I close mine, and my position is refilled with $50 I borrow from you.
So far so good.
However, the engine makes me take five $10 swaps from you. Even though they are all from you, and opened at the same time.
Fast-forward a few months, where everyone has some position open, everyone has auto-lend active, and people replace old or expensive swaps with better ones: voila, the number of swaps grows infinite.

It is almost impossible to do anything against it, like "defragmenting", with the current engine behavior. Even when you wait until all your funds are returned, and then make one big offer again, people will come and take minuscule amounts because they replace minuscule amounts.

And with every "step" it all fragments more and more.

This behavior takes up a lot of my spare/bitcoin time, when I have to mark dozens, hundreds of tiny swaps to replace them. I do this for months now, and don't even want to know how many swaps I marked, replaced and fragmented since then.

And, that's why I asked for the feature of "combining swaps into one line with a +/- button" a few posts above.

Ultimately, I guess this exponential fragmentation will kill all servers where the engine works on, and maybe they change that behavior then ;-)

Ente

Yes, we really appreciated your suggestion, and as far as I know, we are looking into adding those features. However we can make the UI more intuitive, and easier to use, we would like to do so.

[BitBits]

EDIT: sorry messed up quotations in this post previously

...

This is usually the case with hidden orders. In traditional exchanges, many times people "ping" a certain price to try and discover if an order is there. This is like trying to buy 100 shares of a stock from a dark pool. If you are filled you can imagine that there is more there waiting to be filled. There is unfortunately no way to stop that, besides using an "all or nothing" order type. Although the order is hidden, if someone asks for coins, and it matches a hidden order it will be matched. I do think that there are legitimate reasons to prefer a hidden order, and it works well with certain algorithms which are trying to fill a larger order over time. It also might help smooth out the actual executions over time, although it does result in an apparently thinner orderbook. At the end of the day, it just depends on what you are trying to accomplish. We are always looking into more advanced order types.

The way hidden orders were executed in the past was different than it is right now. I really think that the old way was much better. I am talking about the times when there was a 100 BTC minimum requirement for hidden orders.
Can we have hidden orders handled by the system the old way?

[davidgdg]

I have a question. What happens to (say) a 30 day swap at a fixed (not FRR) rate if the trader closes the position early? Does the swap provider get any compensation or does the swap just get closed with no penalty even if rates have fallen and the swap has say 28 days to go?
Thanks
D

[TwinWinNerD]

I have a question. What happens to (say) a 30 day swap at a fixed (not FRR) rate if the trader closes the position early? Does the swap provider get any compensation or does the swap just get closed with no penalty even if rates have fallen and the swap has say 28 days to go?
Thanks
D

The trader can close the swap anytime and only has to pay the time he consumed rounded up to the next full hour (iirc).

Also soon (or already) a feature will be introduced, that will automatically close fixed swaps and replace them with cheaper rates for the lender.

[21pilot]

i assume the recent decline in swap rates is caused by the introduction of the swap bot?
(-> the bot replaces swaps with cheaper swaps automatically)

[statdude]

I am not sure the criteria to add more coins, but I'd like to suggest XMR (Monero).

[Ente]

i assume the recent decline in swap rates is caused by the introduction of the swap bot?
(-> the bot replaces swaps with cheaper swaps automatically)

The bot isn't active yet, and there's no date on that yet.
I guess the exchange rate going sideways for ages is the reason.. People waiting to pull the trigger, as soon as it looks like a bull run.

Ente