Which strategy is best for bitcoin? - page 4
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
It is the Wild West BTC was designed as dream that is just another rug pull .
Reminds me of the early days of retail FX trading in the U.S.--prior to regulation.
As a caveat, the U.S. is presently in the late stages of drafting crypto regulations. The resulting execution policies and reporting requirements will have a market stabilizing effect. That's exactly what happened with retail FX in the mid 2000's.
Reminds me of the early days of retail FX trading in the U.S.--prior to regulation.
As a caveat, the U.S. is presently in the late stages of drafting crypto regulations. The resulting execution policies and reporting requirements will have a market stabilizing effect. That's exactly what happened with retail FX in the mid 2000's.
You know the days when you could have went negative and owed your broker in retail Forex , they changed that because Brokers are basically bookies only they take more off you in spreads and fees and also take the opposite direction of your trades . Retail Forex is gambling the same as BTC they want to regulate it more so they can control it more with less chance of Joe Public having any benefit .You can't have non entities buying in and waking up the next day a millionaire , How are the elite supposed to stay elite with that !! .
Regulation is a 2-way street. In the Wild West days, direct hedging was allowed, and leverage was in the hundreds. But at the same time, there was no trade execution policy. What I experienced with that was Wild West outlaws. Regardless of the number of open trades, direction of any trade, size of a stoploss, or size of a takeprofit, takeprofits and manual trade closures were not executed. They were simply skipped over until the stoplosses were hit. All of the "trading freedom" in the world wasn't worth diddly squat when every FX broker-dealer I that used was a bucket shop. Having migrated over from regulated equities trading, that was quite a shock.
I'll gladly accept the presently less-than-zero-sum nature of spreads, commissions, and/or swaps rather than that kind of "trading freedom." There have always been quite enough thieves without legalizing theft. CFTC/NFA adoption of U.S. FX trading regulations just might have been the only good thing to come out the "Great" Recession.
Regulation is a 2-way street. In the Wild West days, direct hedging was allowed, and leverage was in the hundreds. But at the same time, there was no trade execution policy. What I experienced with that was Wild West outlaws. Regardless of the number of open trades, direction of any trade, size of a stoploss, or size of a takeprofit, takeprofits and manual trade closures were not executed. They were simply skipped over until the stoplosses were hit. All of the "trading freedom" in the world wasn't worth diddly squat when every FX broker-dealer I that used was a bucket shop. Having migrated over from regulated equities trading, that was quite a shock.
I'll gladly accept the presently less-than-zero-sum nature of spreads, commissions, and/or swaps rather than that kind of "trading freedom." There have always been quite enough thieves without legalizing theft. CFTC/NFA adoption of U.S. FX trading regulations just might have been the only good thing to come out the "Great" Recession.
It seems better but it is just the slow bleed design of bookies .
It actually is better because responsibly profitable trading is never a get-rich-quick scheme, and the old paradigm aligned with that scheme.
Legitimate execution and fees now allow us to design our own personal slow bleed of broker-dealers/liquidity providers. As the overwhelming majority of retail traders can't do that, the broker-dealers/liquidity providers now legitimately make their money on that majority's losses plus fees from both losers and winners.
Market centralization plays a big part in legitimizing a given market. That is to say that isolated markets are inherently less legitimate. The interbank (wholesale) FX market is a global network of large institutional traders that generally trade 50 to 100 standard lots per trade. Obviously, smalltime retail traders would have problems getting micro or mini lot trades executed in that market. Presently in the U.S., broker-dealers in the U.S. must ultimately clear their book of trades in the interbank market. The broker-dealers' solution is to aggregate (largely, algorithmically) trades and forward them to the interbank market. This, at least, makes a broker-dealer's OTC trade execution indirectly anchored to the greater interbank feed. This was not the case in the old paradigm.
In contrast, CFD's continue to operate in the old paradigm--at least insofar as being completely isolated from any greater market. This is why trade execution varies so widely among different CFD broker-dealers.
I kind of chuckle when I hear the phrase, "crypto exchange." A real exchange exhibits maximum centralization. A prime example is the U.S. CME--an umbrella exchange for all U.S futures. In contrast, there are dozens of separate "crypto exchanges" at any given time--with some coming and going periodically.
At the end of the day, if I determine that a market is illegitimately structured for my purposes then I simply refuse to participate in it.