Matt Levine on academic research into insider trading correctly observes that published papers always seem to conclude insider trading happens before X, for any X. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-02-15/when-everything-is-too-safe-add-risk … A tantalizing possibility: insider trading happens before accidental p-hacking.
-
-
A very simple ecology of very simulated bots was sufficient to keep up the charade of an actively, lively, not-terribly-disordered market... at least until acted upon by the player, at which point things could go off the rails in delightfully silly ways.
Show this thread -
The insider was trivial to program given that the computer knew the true FMV for the entire simulated year in advance: he’s a value investor who buys when the stock is undervalued and sells when he has locked in a profit... buuuuuut he *literally* knows the future FMV, exactly.
Show this thread -
Interestingly I think we might be the only game which actually had a legit order book*, possibly ever. Most games just simulate the closing price, sometimes the bid/ask price, but it was important for our pedagogic purposes that there be an actual book. * aside from crypto ;)
Show this thread -
You can’t show some of the real challenges of trading without there being an actual order book. For example: slippage. Putting in a sufficiently large order moves the market against you. You can’t teach people about that if you give them any quantity at “the price.”
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.