Removing the "Market expert" which uses OHLCV (Open, High, Low, Close, Volume) also drops the sharpee from 5.01 to 1.88 while also increasing the max draw down to 13.29% (v.s. 9.70% for the index). I'd be very surprised if the pre training of the base model was the only source of leakage...
There is https://www.rwkv.com/ which is an LLM based on RNN's, thus having "infinite" context length, it comes with its own tradebacks though. (Notably that its impossible to actually store infinite information in the network, so it prunes based on which information it finds more important.)
https://x.com/tayvano_/status/1847877011462901915
This thread has some info about very similar past attacks, should give some insights into the level of sophistication that goes into something like that.
The point is the window to buy was 2-3 hours: you had to be ready to trade, and watching either charts or being on a discord or actively checking X and with cash in an account.
People lost money but I doubt there was much collateral damage
Though I agree that the damage will be limited I don't think it would be very concentrated on people paying attention. Considering notifications get pushed and heavy use of large group chats is common in south America does not take much for it to be promoted to laypeople by the more active followers of Javier. Older people particularly at risk given the excessive trust they give to people In position of power, knowledge of technology and readily available savings in USD on non savings accounts or investments.
> Older people particularly at risk given the excessive trust they give to people In position of power, knowledge of technology and readily available savings in USD on non savings accounts or investments.
Older people have seen one hyperinflation, a few high inflation periods, sudden jumps in prices, perhaps two or three bank runs followed by confiscation of the deposits exchanged for long term bonds, and I may be missing a few "interesting" events. They don't trust anybody anymore.
It is exactly the halting problem. Finding some infinite loops is possible, there are even some obvious cases, but finding "any" infinite loops is not. In fact, even the obvious cases are not if you take interrupts into account.
I think that's the joke. In a sci-fi story, that would make the computer explode.
The halting problem isn't so relevant in most development, and nothing stops you having a classifier that says "yes", "no" or "maybe". You can identify code that definitely finishes, and you can identify code that definitely doesn't. You can also identify some risky code that probably might. Under condition X, it would go into an infinite loop - even if you're not sure if condition X can be met.
The problem is that you can do this for specific functions/methods, but you cannot do this for a PROGRAM. All programs are "maybe", by definition. You want it to run until you tell it to stop, but you may never tell it to stop. Ergo, all programs have some sort of infinite loop in them somewhere, even if it is buried in your framework or language runtime.
Yeah, sorry, I wasn’t clear: not the user, the programmer. This is true for almost all programs. Even a simple “print hello world” involves at least one intentional infinite loop: sending bytes to the buffer. The buffer could remain full forever.
So now I probabilistically spam a ton of different orders to on average get my desired fill...
This just turns it into a "whoever is best at DoS'ing the exchange" game.
As the orderbook fills with competitor orders it makes sense for yourself to also spam orders so each of your orders maintains the same probability of being filled
> Our analysis of the TWSE’s transition clearly demonstrates that continuous trading results in better liquidity provision, lower bid-ask spreads, more stable prices and enhanced price discovery, as well as higher trading volumes.
If we consider the function of a market to be to arrive at prices that lead to the optimal allocation of the goods sold on that market, intuitively it would seem that there should be a limit on how fast trades need to propagate to achieve that, and the limit would be tied to how fast new information relevant to the producers and consumers of those goods comes out.
I don't think I'm expressing this well but the idea is that prices of goods should be tied to things that actually affect those goods. That's generally going to be real world news.
If you turn up trading speed much past the speed necessary to deal with that I'd expect that you could end up with the market reacting to itself. Kind of like when you turn an amplifier up to much and start getting distortion and even feedback.
Broadly speaking, yes. Turning down liquidity increases spreads which affects which sorts of companies are able to raise what sorts of capital in those markets.
The paradox of HFT is that it's much smaller and more efficient than the slower, manpower-heavy Wall Street industry it replaced. It's just weird, which makes it easy to demonise in popular politics.
No they're definitely evil. Maybe not broadly, but they keep trying to force long-standing public RF spectrum into the private domain just so random companies can have a very slight trading edge. I have a hard time believing that there aren't other negative externalities.
Is more liquidity needed? Yes, we have drastically reduced spreads these days.
Markets facilitate the buying and selling of securities, providing a regulated platform for companies to raise capital and for investors to trade assets based on supply and demand. Reducing spreads is optimal for everyone. Your making up some kind of pie in the sky idea of how markets should exist. The folks doing HFT or other type of flat at the end of day shops do not have the capital to move prices as much as you would like to think. Even if they did cause some large movement in the stock, there is a good chance there is a larger fish ready to take the other side.
You're missing the point, news never affect prices directly. News generate excess (compared with current price) supply or demand, which is the primary cause for price changes. In a certain way, it's always "market reacting to itself".
Note that American exchanges open and close with a batched cross. This hybrid approach is why most objections to intraday continuous trading is misplaced.
