macrocephalopod

precisely. what if all the orders were lit?!? then there could never be price improvement? i dont care about slippage or any of that nonsense

It’s just theoretical discussion, we obviously can’t know what would happen if we moved every single order to a lit exchange and maybe it would be worse who knows

just a series of moving goalposts with no one wanting to suggest real changes when they could just quietly do what they want and see if it makes them money too

That's not true at all. I've always suggested very concrete changes we could make, most of which are already done in other global markets.

1/n Damnit! Getting lost in this thread here. I am not make an argument on off vs on exchange. I am making an argument from the idea that market participants should get to all see the best bid and best offer at the same time, contemporaneously.

2/n This can't be the case if multiple venues exist and/or MMs pay for order flow. What are they paying for? MMs used to take risk on inventory. Asking: now how long is a MM holding inventory? Suspect just long enough to grab it and sell it in such a time frame no one notices.

3/n If this weren't true why do HFT MMs have no down days? If you say you are taking risk, that means you can lose money. You can't hold inventory and not lose money, at least some of the time. Something doesn't add up in the story.

i’m confused. what do you think doesn’t add up? it’s very possible to lose money when you’re against names that are mostly unidirectional (but this rarely happens)