Well, well, there was news recently that Bitmex will pay $ 100 million in a CFTC lawsuit filed last year in October.
https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8270-20
It is noteworthy that it was in October that the exchange was blacklisted, the so-called high-risk exchanges.
The dispute resolution news is available here: https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-announces-100-million-enforcement-action-against-unregistered-futures
Perhaps it is $100 million, which is the price for Chainalysis to remove the exchange from the blacklist. But despite the satisfaction of the claim in full, litigation against Bitmex continues, or rather against the former leaders: https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/1383748
Topic: ㅤ (Read 118 times)
Sounds like a move to cut off the retails traders. I hope the 100 contracts minimum won't turn into 1000 and the 10K. I seriously wonder how someone trading for example 1 contract has the power to manipulate the market than those chaps trading 100K contracts at ago. 
In fact, this step was very sensible and helped to solve some problems with opening orders. Due to the high price of bitcoin, large slippages began to occur on the platform. That is, you could place a buy order, for example, a limit order at $58 000, but for some reason your order was triggered at $58 015, sometimes slippage reached $35. I saw this when the price was above $62 000.
The problem lay in the fact that the calculations were made in Xbt (this is how Satoshi is denoted on Bitmex). But sometimes slippage worked in the opposite direction, that is, you went short at $58 000, and the order was triggered at a different level, at $58 015. You have opened a position and is already in a small plus, although the market is still at the level at which your order triggered. High-frequency micro-scalpers began to take advantage of this gap in the settlement system and, with the help of bots, began to make a huge number of transactions with such errors. It turned out that they entered deals and immediately exited, because to earn money they had to catch just such a difference in calculations.
Therefore, Bitmex solved this problem:
Quote
BitMEX Eliminates Risk-Free Vulnerability for High Frequency Traders
"As the representative of BitMEX explained at the time, the dollar amount is only a displayed value. In fact, the BitMEX engine calculates all orders in bitcoins or, if we are talking about smaller values, in satoshi, rounding the amounts to eight decimal places. with a strike price of $55,509.5 is equivalent to 0.00001801493 XBT, and with a strike price of $55,524.5 - 0.00001801006 XBT.But for the BitMEX engine after rounding, this is the same order for 0.00001801 XBT.
The discrepancy may seem insignificant to the average trader, but it is huge for high frequency algorithms that conduct many trades with small profits. To take advantage, the algorithms placed buy orders at the upper end of the range. Thus, they received a margin for lowering the price in dollars, while the BitMEX engine, which calculates in satoshi, would consider that the price did not change. If the rate really started to fall, it was enough to close the deal. If the price went up, BitMEX saw its change in satoshi and credited the corresponding profit. The same is true for short positions using the lower end of the range. "
"As the representative of BitMEX explained at the time, the dollar amount is only a displayed value. In fact, the BitMEX engine calculates all orders in bitcoins or, if we are talking about smaller values, in satoshi, rounding the amounts to eight decimal places. with a strike price of $55,509.5 is equivalent to 0.00001801493 XBT, and with a strike price of $55,524.5 - 0.00001801006 XBT.But for the BitMEX engine after rounding, this is the same order for 0.00001801 XBT.
The discrepancy may seem insignificant to the average trader, but it is huge for high frequency algorithms that conduct many trades with small profits. To take advantage, the algorithms placed buy orders at the upper end of the range. Thus, they received a margin for lowering the price in dollars, while the BitMEX engine, which calculates in satoshi, would consider that the price did not change. If the rate really started to fall, it was enough to close the deal. If the price went up, BitMEX saw its change in satoshi and credited the corresponding profit. The same is true for short positions using the lower end of the range. "
I don't know if the freezes where part of manipulation, but I lean more to too much traffic since it was a top derivatives exchange at that time. After the introduction of KYC, the volumes shifted to Binance. Have you noticed that Binance tends to freeze whenever the market is volatile lately. It never used to happen.
There is such a trader's joke that Binance, along with Bitmex's bitcoins, also took away Bitmex's lags.
On Bitmex they completely disappeared, but they appeared on Binance. Recently, I have been hearing exactly the same complaints about Binance's behavior during major market movements, which were at one time on Bitmex. Maybe these are problems with the load on the servers, or maybe this is another element of taking money away from the exchange clients. You probably won't be able to find out. But since the regulators pounced on Bitmex, the exchange has become just perfect. I missed this changes since I no longer use the platform. What's the new minimum order limit?
Previously, there was at least 1 contract, now at least 100 contracts.
I missed this changes since I no longer use the platform. What's the new minimum order limit?
Previously, there was at least 1 contract, now at least 100 contracts.
From a security point of view, Bitmex I like, because it has never been hacked or compromised, no hacker attacks have been made on it. And this is just an excellent result for a 7-year period of work. Few exchanges can show such a result. The exception was the story of the e-mail compromise, but this problem was quickly resolved and those who could be potentially at risk quickly warned them and forcibly reset their passwords to enter the exchange so that users create a new one.
As for novice traders, this exchange is unsafe and highly discouraged in terms of maintaining its balance. There is nothing for an untrained trader to do on this exchange.
As for novice traders, this exchange is unsafe and highly discouraged in terms of maintaining its balance. There is nothing for an untrained trader to do on this exchange.
I tried googling this but couldn't find it, so could be completely off mark and mixing it up with something else... but I think I read somewhere that most big platform hacks are sleepers that are woken up after a period of time. So the hackers try to infect as many points as they can, without being discovered. Hoping that every time they upgrade or bring over new security, they carry over the undetected malware or code.
Triggering them only years later in a long con when there's a lot of info or access compromised. So when an exchange hasn't ever been hacked, I think:
- they successfully covered it up.
- they're not worth hacking.
- they haven't been hacked (triggered) yet.
You're probably right to trust that level of reputation though. I also have a couple of platforms I begrudgingly trust due to my need for such fiat ramping services =)
And in general, as a user of this exchange for 4 years now, I can say that this was a natural result of the orgy that was happening on the exchange at that time. Constant freezes of the exchange at the most crucial moments, the inability to cancel or place orders when there are powerful bursts of trading activity, all this was also part of the manipulation.
I don't know if the freezes where part of manipulation, but I lean more to too much traffic since it was a top derivatives exchange at that time. After the introduction of KYC, the volumes shifted to Binance. Have you noticed that Binance tends to freeze whenever the market is volatile lately. It never used to happen.for example, the recent increase in the limits for placing the minimum order.
I missed this changes since I no longer use the platform. What's the new minimum order limit? It wasn't just the lack of KYC that influenced Chainalysis's decision. Large lawsuits began to be filed against the owners of the exchange, accusations of fraud and manipulation began to be often petty, there was also a violation of regulation in relation to American residents who were prohibited from trading on this site, but they were still there, and in the list of top traders of this exchange ... I do not exclude the fact that they, among other things, worked for the stock exchange.
I'm not sure if Chainalysis actually being on the payroll of several US regulation and enforcement agencies (good business selling their blockchain forensics services) also had something to do with them giving Bitmex that earlier rating, though. I mean, if you're actively helping these agencies track citizens for tax and what not, then you're obliged to also apply the high-risk rating to those platforms under investigation, almost to try and prevent more US people from using them. Not that I think Bitmex are safe, of course.
Well, I don't know what else one would expect. After all they did comply with KYC - and that was the whole reason why their status of being high risk came about in the first place.
Every crypto company seems to go through these phases. They first thrive because of the fact that they don't have any KYC, get cracked down upon because of it, and then they are essentially forced to adopt KYC/AML standards as all other exchanges and lose their competitive edge.
This is what has happened to Bitmex here. Deribit & Them are definitely not as competitive as previously given all these restrictions.
Every crypto company seems to go through these phases. They first thrive because of the fact that they don't have any KYC, get cracked down upon because of it, and then they are essentially forced to adopt KYC/AML standards as all other exchanges and lose their competitive edge.
This is what has happened to Bitmex here. Deribit & Them are definitely not as competitive as previously given all these restrictions.
Jump to: