Search results

Well, Robert, that change basically frees all individual traders from the non-display fees. Hope other exchanges make the same clarification.

kmiklas - data isn't free, since someone has to collect it, distribute it, maintain the infrastructure etc. That is not the problem. Redistribution fees are also logical and fair. But pricing it differently based on the individual's use to which the data is put is utterly disingenuous. It's like...

lspdtrdr - it's not hacking. It is pretty straightforward programming. Almost the only way for the monitoring you're suggesting to work is if you're required to submit the full source code of your program to the monitors so they can look through it and see if anything "forbidden" is going on...

Shreddog, I deal with lots of different vendors and their APIs. They can easily control *who* connects to their API. They can easily log every API call. They definitely have no way of finding out or controlling exactly what the logic of the program that is placing the orders is, how it arrives...

And two minutes from program launch, the program pulls in a text file, heavily encoded, unencrypts it, dynamically compiles it, and runs it, completely changing its functionality. Try to monitor that.

If it saves me a few K a month? Yes.

Very easy to do with the modern programming environments. Hell, you could even dynamically compile new code and incorporate it in the program. As I said there are a myriad ways around this stuff. It's all bits and bytes. There is a way around everything. Just like there is no pirate-proof...

What you describe can only be done if the exchanges write interfaces for every API, and for every environment, then FORCE you to use their interfaces to communicate with the API. And even then there are ways around it. Fairly simple ways. That is not what exists today, and I don't see that...

Yes, if they can put their monitoring process on your box, running as root, they can check whatever they want. But (and it's a big but) this is so invasive as to be illegal, I would like a cite showing that they can or do do it, and (since the variety of computer systems out there so great and...

Who are "they" that hash the binary? It is YOUR program. Your code. You write it. You compile it. You run it. You are sending the order. You control what is being sent. Whatever authentication process there is, you're the one controlling it.

They're not idiots, it's the task that is impossible. Again, how exactly can they "audit" that only that program can connect to the API? It's your program (or programs). You're in control. Programs don't have fingerprints. Basically, how do you forensically determine whether the API order was...

Ok - but you understand that from the technical point of view, it is hilariously easy to show non-"non-display" use of data to the auditors, even during the physical office visit? And "packet sniffers" can only show what is being done through the API, not the "intent" behind it... In fact, who...

Exactly how does that audit work? Can you tell us based on your friend's? "What do you do with the data?" "I chart it. Here is the program I use." "Then what do you do?" "Then I submit the orders. Manually. Type them in and send them. Here is the program I use." .... ?

That's my point exactly. So, based on that, you can file your "non-display" declaration with NYSE, truthfully saying that your use is not "non-display".

Joan: https://www.ctaplan.com/publicdocs/ctaplan/notifications/trader-update/CTA Network A Pricing - Jan 1 2015.pdf Bottom of page 3: Non-Display Use refers to accessing, processing or consuming data, whether delivered via direct and/or redistributor data feeds, for a purpose other than in...

Joan: but that's not what's happening (Robert, correct me if I am wrong). If what you are saying were true, there would be no need for the "non-display" declaration. The use of Lightspeed API automatically triggers the requirement that you, the user, fill out the "non-display" declaration for...

Unenforceable.

Not according to the language I cited.... "It [non-display] does not apply to the creation and use of derived data." Charting/indicators are derived data.

And if there are no automated orders, is it "display" or "non-display"? That is why I said it is non-enforceable. You fill out the declaration. You say (truthfully, actually), that you are using the data to chart and display the charts. Thus it is not "non-display". How exactly is the exchange...

Charting the data and showing it on the screen - is that "display" or "non-display"?