Author Topic: DEX Arbitrage to increase liquidity  (Read 5523 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline clayop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2033
    • View Profile
    • Bitshares Korea
  • BitShares: clayop
Seems it's still not working. Just imported my vesting balances without a problem.
But the insufficient feeds remain.

Edit: bitbtc bitusd market worked after putting in an order.
But Bitgold bitusd, still gives insufficient feeds

BitUSD:BitCNY market also gives insufficient feeds error.

Plus a question. Is relative order applied to BitAssets pair as well? e.g. BitUSD:BitCNY. IMO, this will greatly attract market makers who want to make a profit in remittance market.
Bitshares Korea - http://www.bitshares.kr
Vote for me and see Korean Bitshares community grows
delegate-clayop

Offline graffenwalder

500 more blocks till hardfork

Pah! I'm impatient :)
Seems it's still not working. Just imported my vesting balances without a problem.
But the insufficient feeds remain.

Edit: bitbtc bitusd market worked after putting in an order.
But Bitgold bitusd, still gives insufficient feeds
« Last Edit: January 20, 2015, 06:21:46 pm by Graffenwalder »

Offline islandking

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 378
  • The king of the island
    • View Profile
500 more blocks till hardfork

500 blocks until a BTS price drop.... :D
I've been working on a new electronic cash system that's fully peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party. - Satoshi

Offline monsterer

My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline graffenwalder

500 more blocks till hardfork

Offline monsterer

bitasset pairs are already fixed in the hard fork coming with 0.5.0

I'm still showing 'not enough feeds' for bitUSD/bitBTC on 0.5.1
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
Triangular arbitrage creates efficient markets, which means the narrowest equalised spreads across each market the triangle works on. It doesn't doesn't add liquidity directly, but the increased trading activity can give rise to more liquidity arriving to take advantage of the increase in trading.
I can't see how this is true. Arbitragers will only step in when the relative prices deviate by an amount that covers the spread costs in each market. When the relative prices are within that range, there is no arbitrage opportunity and the spreads and liquidity in each market are unaffected. So if the relative prices are deviating a lot, there may be some marginal increase to one-way trading activity to bring them in line, but that's about it.

If the new pair is a more attractive trading pair for other reasons, then true, it might attract more traders to the market, who then branch out and improve liquidity in a range of pairs - but that could be any pair to initiate this, not necessarily a cross-pair to complete a triangle.

I credit you on exploring new ideas, but I'm just skeptical it will give the result you want.

Offline monsterer

Triangular arbitrage creates efficient markets, which means the narrowest equalised spreads across each market the triangle works on. It doesn't doesn't add liquidity directly, but the increased trading activity can give rise to more liquidity arriving to take advantage of the increase in trading.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
Assuming I've understood the proposition correctly, I don't think that what is being suggested in the OP will actually help to narrow the spreads. If it were possible, then any stock exchange for example could simply offer cross-stock trades (creating the required triangularities) to improve the liquidity and spreads in each of its stock listings.

Instead what I think would happen is that all three pairs would trade at spreads, and the cost of trading around the triangle would limit arbitrage as before. Eg if you created a market in BTC/USD and got hit on your buy BTC / sell USD order, you could not simultaneously sell BTC for BTS and buy USD for BTS without incurring the spread costs in those markets, meaning the arbitrage is ineffective. Instead you would need to wait to get hit on those positions at market or better, in which case you are simply assuming the risk of the market-maker.

That's correct; arbitrage doesn't directly add liquidity, it removes it. Every time someone executes a triangular arbitrage trade, the order book gets smaller.

Obviously, arbitrage is still extremely valuable, since it enforces price consistency. It's even possible that allowing arbitrage will help increase liquidity indirectly since there will be more market activity, which compounds into more activity.

I agree it can enforce price consistency, but only to the extent that price discrepancies are greater than the combined spread costs of doing the arbitrage. At high spread costs the potential for arbitrage is very limited. Consider that the external exchange (eg BTER) already has such a triangle - bitUSD/BTC, bitUSD/USD and BTC/USD, but there are high spreads and limited arbitrage if any going on in the bitUSD pairs.

It should also be noted that enforcing (limited) price consistency is also not the same as ensuring close pegging of bitUSD. If the market values bitUSD at a discount to USD, this will be reflected in all the corresponding pairs.

Having said that, there may be other reasons to add bitAsset v bitCurrency pairs to the market, so I'm not averse to the idea only questioning the rationale. What will attract people ultimately is the ability to make profits at reasonable cost (transaction spreads and fees) and with reasonable comfort around the collateral and counterparty risks. For example for some reason the largest crypto exchanges remain those with limited crypto listings.

Offline biophil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 880
  • Professor of Computer Science
    • View Profile
    • My Academic Website
  • BitShares: biophil
Assuming I've understood the proposition correctly, I don't think that what is being suggested in the OP will actually help to narrow the spreads. If it were possible, then any stock exchange for example could simply offer cross-stock trades (creating the required triangularities) to improve the liquidity and spreads in each of its stock listings.

Instead what I think would happen is that all three pairs would trade at spreads, and the cost of trading around the triangle would limit arbitrage as before. Eg if you created a market in BTC/USD and got hit on your buy BTC / sell USD order, you could not simultaneously sell BTC for BTS and buy USD for BTS without incurring the spread costs in those markets, meaning the arbitrage is ineffective. Instead you would need to wait to get hit on those positions at market or better, in which case you are simply assuming the risk of the market-maker.

That's correct; arbitrage doesn't directly add liquidity, it removes it. Every time someone executes a triangular arbitrage trade, the order book gets smaller.

Obviously, arbitrage is still extremely valuable, since it enforces price consistency. It's even possible that allowing arbitrage will help increase liquidity indirectly since there will be more market activity, which compounds into more activity.
Support our research efforts to improve BitAsset price-pegging! Vote for worker 1.14.204 "201907-uccs-research-project."

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
Assuming I've understood the proposition correctly, I don't think that what is being suggested in the OP will actually help to narrow the spreads. If it were possible, then any stock exchange for example could simply offer cross-stock trades (creating the required triangularities) to improve the liquidity and spreads in each of its stock listings.

Instead what I think would happen is that all three pairs would trade at spreads, and the cost of trading around the triangle would limit arbitrage as before. Eg if you created a market in BTC/USD and got hit on your buy BTC / sell USD order, you could not simultaneously sell BTC for BTS and buy USD for BTS without incurring the spread costs in those markets, meaning the arbitrage is ineffective. Instead you would need to wait to get hit on those positions at market or better, in which case you are simply assuming the risk of the market-maker.


julian1

  • Guest
I would love to see this too for http://xchain.info.

If an active market can be established for GATEBTC/BitUSD and GATEBTC/BitBTC then folks (except MM) can forget about GATEBTC and it becomes possible for the Gateway to perform direct BTC <> BitUSD etc exchange.

Albeit there's still an issue with front-running.

On another note, I believe anxpro does some constructed/synthetic pairs trading to create extra liquidity for non-USD to bitcoin trading.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
If we get relative orders for cross pairs in 0.7, and assuming that our pricefeeds are highly precise and reliable for each asset, it will be possible to offer absolutely insane spreads, like 0.001% or less for pairs like BitGOLD/BitUSD with guaranteed profitability through automated hedging.
not sure about the precision of feeds .. bts are traded at a spread across different platforms .. that spread appears in the feeds too ... not sure how balanced this spread vs. nr. of delegates for the media really is .. we should analyse the spread of the variance of the feeds more closely .. but something in the range of 0.1% to 0.5 feels more realistic .. for now .. (just a gut feeling though)

It has to be standardized so what the feeds really report are the price of BTS in USD, and then the price of every other asset in USD, and then combines these two together to form the BTS/asset feed (that way the relative data of two feeds will produce the exact asset to asset rate). This will only be crucial if relative orders indeed are implemented for cross pairs.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
If we get relative orders for cross pairs in 0.7, and assuming that our pricefeeds are highly precise and reliable for each asset, it will be possible to offer absolutely insane spreads, like 0.001% or less for pairs like BitGOLD/BitUSD with guaranteed profitability through automated hedging.
not sure about the precision of feeds .. bts are traded at a spread across different platforms .. that spread appears in the feeds too ... not sure how balanced this spread vs. nr. of delegates for the media really is .. we should analyse the spread of the variance of the feeds more closely .. but something in the range of 0.1% to 0.5 feels more realistic .. for now .. (just a gut feeling though)

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
If we get relative orders for cross pairs in 0.7, and assuming that our pricefeeds are highly precise and reliable for each asset, it will be possible to offer absolutely insane spreads, like 0.001% or less for pairs like BitGOLD/BitUSD with guaranteed profitability through automated hedging.