This would be detrimental to the exchanges that do this in my opinion.)
the reason being is that if people like me end up getting caught buying at a spike, then i tend to leave sell orders and then buy more to average down, inserting a new sell order each time so i know that i make profit from each lower buy - i then leave them in place to get filled over time.
if i was limited to the amount of buys/sells i could have then i would end up finding it harder to average down and would then find another exchange which would allow me to trade more freely.
Dont get me wrong I get frustrated at an artificial market which suddenly vanishes but thats just one of the risks ;-)
So I'm sorry but I would have to vote against a cap on buy/sell limits
All the best
Stuart
I see your points, and agree to a degree, on averaging down you need 15 sell orders and 15 buy orders ? could you not operate with 4 buy , 4 sell ? atleast your busy day aint in my face that way
. I think there comes a balance of trading in blocks and then just outright spamming. Or the exchanges should at-least make their order-books detachable so I can then see past your 15 trades on a second monitor.
its a bit like rocking up at the markets and instead of having a little stall, you roll your tables out across an entire street and say its detrimental to trade and i need to show all my items at once, this is a free country, these markets will suffer, digital space on an orderbook is no different.
Why not carry a few manikins to the supermarket, just incase theres a faster lane ? Well cause its kinda rude ? Same deal, but hey just my opinion,
I just think we need some kinda limit, not a complete iron fist ban. Maybe I should change my title " Who wants to be kind to others and limit their orders for all"
