Topic: [BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED] - page 138. (Read 316669 times)

You would definitely get a false sense of how much coin is on the exchange if you went through all the assets and added up the bids.  Of course if you did this on the order books of an NYSE broker you'd have the same result.

On a per-asset basis I think this approach improves liquidity and provides by default a feature that is fairly standard with the big boys.

That an employee of an exchange didn't immediately get it is troubling.  I'm not sure if it's really that confusing, or if we just didn't explain it all that well.  Hopefully the latter.  (* poking her in the ribs a little bit here.  *)

Cheers.

The main disadvantage of OCA orders is that it will likely create a false presence of the bid-side of many assets.

To clear up one more small thing about the way it works:

It doesn't matter how many orders you have up on a single security - if someone sells YOU some of that security it will NEVER cancel any Bids you have on that security.  It's logically impossible.  Can explain why if you want - but it's actually pretty obvious if you just think it through.

Making sure it wasnt possible to load order-books with unbacked orders was one of the first questions I asked about the platform when I started using it (by which I mean LTC-GLOBAL - which is same code-base as BTC.CO).

Your example is exactly what I was explaing you CANT do.

If you deposit 100 coins then you can't ever have bids totalling more than 100 coins on any single security.  By totalling I mean "all bids on that security added together".

You CAN'T have X: 100@1, [email protected]

You CAN have X: 100@1,  Y: 100@1.

If you put the second set up then as soon someone sold you one of X, the Y order would be cancelled (you can of course put up 2 orders of 50 each for X and Y meaning that you'd still have one order left up for each until you'd been sold 51 or more units).

Re-read my post bearing in mind your misconception - and you'll likely interpret it a bit differently.

You've made it clear that you do not understand.  That's ok, let's do an example:

You deposit 100 coins.
You put up a buy of symbol X: 100 @ 1
You put up a buy of symbol X: 95 @ 1.05
    - the system responds "Canceled order: X 100 @ 1"
You put up a buy of symbol X: 50 @ 2
    - the system responds "Canceled order: X 95 @ 1.05"

...following?  let's continue...

You put up a buy of symbol Y: 50 @ 2
You buy symbol Z: 50 @ 2
    - the system responds "Processed order: Z 50 @ 2"
    - the system responds "Canceled order: X 50 @ 2"
    - the system responds "Canceled order: Y 50 @ 2"


It always cancels the orders you cannot afford, starting with the lowest cost bids.

Cheers.

Edit: As Deprived post below points out, this assumes we're ignoring the TX fees... which the system does not, so reduce all the quantities by 1 or 2 shares if you want to try it IRL. 

I deposit a hundred coins. I place offers to buy symbol X: 100 @ 1, 95 @ 1.05, 50 @ 2 etc. Total apparent volume is 245, which disappears the moment someone actually sells 50 into it. Having 245 worth of unitary volume disintegrated as a result of a 50 unit sale is the exact stuff panics are made out of, it's simply an invitation for a run.


The illusion of liquidity would be much lower, in the sense that it would be equal to the actual liquidity. Unfunded orders do not in fact improve liquidity, they simply increase the perceived liquidity above its real level. This is not desirable, neither for the users nor for the exchange. It's in fact a sign of poor management for the exchange, just as it's a sign of strategic ineptitude on the part of the operator to not realize this on their own.

Fees collected will be converted to LTC and distributed as LTC.  I know this is going to bug some BTC users, but I don't really see a way around it without introducing significant management overhead in the dividend process.

I won't rule out changes down the road, but that's how it is right now.

Site FAQ says that extra funds will be distributed to LTC-Global share holders.  Will the fees be converted to LTC and then distributed or will the shareholders have the option to keep them as BTC?

We'll list any GLBSE refugee asset on BTCTC (https://btct.co/) for free.

We can't guarantee that they'll pass the approval voting process, as that's up to the mods.  PM me after re-creating your asset and we will refund the 5 BTC asset listing fee as soon as we confirm that your asset was listed on the GLBSE prior to it's closing.

I'll also note that picking up operations should be fairly painless.  The platform allows free transfers from account to account, so if you request the asset holder's BTCTC username as part of the claims process, it is quick and easy to transfer the appropriate shares to their BTCTC account.

Thanks!

Yeah, that wouldn't be very smart.  Did you have a particular exchange in mind that does that?  I don't think I've ever seen any that do.

Deprived is correct, on BTCTC orders in the book are backed by currency as of the moment you load the book.  You could fill the entire book in one direction or the other if you really wanted to.

Cheers.

Fair enough.

Yeah, definitely not a high priority thing, but if ya happen to be doing something else in that pile of code.

Thank you.

-- Smoov

Just to clear one thing up - in case you're misunderstanding it.  You can't place orders on a single security over your available balance.  So if there's 1 million LTC of bids on a security then there's always funds backing them sufficient that you could sell to all of the bids at once.  Of course, when you did so it may be the case that a bunch of bids on other securities may get cancelled.

Now I can see where you may be coming from - that if you add up the total of bids on ALL securities then it'll add up to more than the total funds actually committed to bids on the site.  But that total is pretty meaningless anyway - it's only a snapshot and is neither an upper nor a lower bound on funds actually available to purchase with.

When someone places an Ask order, they don't buy from the whole book - they buy from the book for a specific security.  Any time you look at the book for a specific security the list of bids DOES reflect cash available right that instant to fulfil matching Asks.  That's the most you can ever get - there's no requirement for bids to stay up for a period of time and no restriction on when/whether/why they may be cancelled.  In this specific case the reason they're being cancelled is because the funds the user was going to use for that bid has been used to purchase securities elsewhere - that the mechanism for that was an automated cancel rather than a manual one is of zero relevance whasoever to the seller: the offer is no longer there and that's all that really matters.

Any small devaluation of overall information about trade (and yes - I agree there's some devaluation of information about funds in play over the entire market) is, in my view, more than compensated for by the ability not to have to tie up funds on a 1:1 basis for bids on a range of pretty illiquid assets.

Liquidity would be much lower without the ability to place multiple orders utilizing the same funds. Choices are good though.

The fact that something is commonly used does not immediately speak to it being a good idea (nor is it that commonly used outside of retail).

The link you cite refers to a specific order type, not an exchange mode of operation. The important difference is in how such an order would be shown on the book. If an exchange doesn't allow unfunded orders and publishes the book, then inferences about the real market depth and stock liquidity can be made. If an exchange allows unfunded orders then practically it might as well not publish the book, seeing how it's largely meaningless.

Bad idea how exactly?  It's a commonly used order strategy?

One-Cancels-All Orders: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/onecancelall.asp

Thank you for pointing out that MPEx is doing it the other way, I suppose I can bump up the priority on it a bit.  I'm sure it will be beneficial having the option to alter your BTCTC order behavior depending on your preference.

Cheers.

Afaik only MPEx does what you want, in spite of the fact that the alternative is a bad idea.

Excellent. I will look in to moving Cognitive and Synergy here.

Appreciate your input Smoov.  Will definitely consider putting an option in the settings.  As you mentioned, it should be easy to alter behavior to the way you describe on a per-user basis.  It's a minimal amount of programming.  (hour? maybe two?)  So after some of the higher priority items are done it should be easy to plug in.

Like I said... without the ability to disable that feature for myself, I won't be very likely to trade there...

I don't expect you to make it optional, just to get me to trade there... just offering my reason for my choice.

If it doesn't prevent my placing an order, due to insufficient funds, then it isn't acceptable.

From what I've heard, one of the strengths of your system(s) is the amount of features that you have been making available that sites like GLBSE lacked, for the users' benefit. Giving us the flexibility to tailor our experience according to our individual trading habits and preferences, is an important thing to have, and the particular one I'm talking about is SOOOO EASY to implement, so I just don't understand the unwillingness to allow us a choice, and force this system on those who don't want it.

Take it however you want, but that is my thought about it. >shrugs<

-- Smoov

All you have to do is simply not place orders that exceed your balance. Orders are easy to see from the portfolio "my orders" tab or from separate security trade screens and unlike your debit card example there are no overdraft fees. Also when a trade executes and other trades need to be cancelled the system seems to cancel your lowest bids first, notifies you on screen instantly, and issues an email. This isn't credit and there are no margin calls. It's merely a system that increases liquidity and allows investors to maximize the effect of available capital.