Conversation

Replying to

6) Who knows if that makes money or not; that's not the point here. The point is that this will do something silly. a) Let's say the market is 100.45 @ 100.48. It'll send a 100.25 bid. b) Now say someone bids 100.46. It'll cancel its 100.25 bid and send a 100.26 bid.

1

19

7) In fact, every time the best bid changes, the bot cancels its bid and places a new one. What's wrong with that? Well: if the best bid is 100.46..... ...who cares if you bid 100.25 vs 100.26?

1

21

8) I dare you to tell me that you have a trading strategy in a messy industry where you feel confident about $100.25 vs $100.26 bids when the market is at $100.46.

3

1

28

9) 0.20% was, probably, just an approximation anyway, meant to say "idk, more than 0.05%, and way less than 1%". So, sure, you could cancel your 100.25 and place a 100.26. Or, you know, you could not. You could just keep your 100.25 bid out there.

1

25

10) But if it's all the same, why am I bothering to write about it? Because placing orders uses a scarce resource: matching engine capacity.

2

28

11) If an exchange can handle 5k orders/second, and it's already processed 4,999, then there's only one slot left. Alice wants to buy 1 BTC. Bob wants to update his 100.25 bid to 100.26. But there's only room for one. I sure hope Alice gets her trade!

1

36

12) _This_ is why ratelimits exist. Because no matter how many orders your exchange can handle, if 100 traders are updating 10 orders each on 50 markets on each side every 0.01% market move, that's 100,000 orders sent when BTC goes up 0.01%. 100,000 orders, and no actual trades

3

40

13) Bots can easily expand to fill whatever limits they're given. In doing so, they sometimes cannibalize all important orders, replacing them with unimportant jiggling of irrelevant orders.

3

29

14) Market makers often reach out to us, asking for higher ratelimits. I used to just grant them! Then I took a look at what was actually going on. And 90% of the time, they were flickering some orders once per second 25bps away from the market.

3

48

15) That's where the ratelimits were going. We might build a tool to let users see what their orders are doing. I think a lot would be pretty surprised: many FTX traders send 50x as many orders per trade as others, even if both are only providing and not taking!

2

49

16) And it's a shame, because in the end it's a public resource. FTX's ratelimits set a fairly constant orders/$ traded, and many of the top firms aren't close to hitting theirs. If you're blowing through yours, ask yourself: what are most of your orders actually doing?

10:54 PM · Mar 3, 2021Twitter Web App

Flying Crypto Cat

Replying to

and

@AndreCronjeTech

isn't this what you were waiting for...

Replying to

and

seems like you could create a very different trading world simply by charging a tiny amount, say a penny or a dime, for each canceled order.

1

2

Replying to

yup! agreed, we've though about charging like $0.001 per order sent or maybe canceled. But I think people would revolt.

3

5

Show replies

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

ya agreed, FTX does have a bit of that, though not a ton

1

Replying to

and

orders/$ traded is an excellent way to adjust rate limits per client. If you have shit fill ratios, you should be delegated less resources.

5

Replying to

and

Kucoin, real time.

Embedded video

0:17

191 views

5

Daniel Wasserman

Replying to

and

Should there be a rate limit per market in conjunction with global rate limit? Per market rate limits reduce capacity for jiggly orders, though the risk engine is probably not highly parallelizable (hence global limit)

2

1

LeslieisHODLing

@LeslieisHODLing

Replying to

and

This rewards market makers to make markets in more pairs which is ideal imo

Replying to

and

What metric do you think is out there to justify one’s good efficiency/order usage? Something beyond classic Trades traded/Trades participated, fill/cancel ratio, total # of symbol traded?