pull down to refresh

130 sats \ 8 replies \ @AGORA OP 2 Sep \ on: ↯ Stacker.News CC/SAT Exchange Order Book 📔 v0.3 meta AGORA

Thanks @optimism for your feefback #1560528 both suggestions have now been implemented. Simulator make much more sense now.

write
compose
26 sats \ 7 replies \ @optimism 2 Sep

<3

One note: I think the order table still can use some work (ask side is upside down if you merge it like that)

generally you'd display it like:

ask highest
....
ask lowest
--- mid market / spread--
bid highest
...
bid lowest

if you collapse into a single table. it can be that the highest bid is higher than the lowest ask, then there is a negative spread (= a market inefficiency)

The previous version of the table with 2 separate tables for each side was more clear, because the best deal was at the top of each table.

reply
130 sats \ 4 replies \ @AGORA OP 2 Sep

Ok make sense, make sense. I was trying to incorprate 0x feedback #1560542

Let me see how I can merge both ideas. I like the fact to have negative spread, that could be reflected in the chart too.

reply
5 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 2 Sep

That works but then you have to normalize both sides (like for the spread graph)

I like the fact to have negative spread, that could be reflected in the chart too.

Yes, it's important information because it means bidder (a) should talk to asker (b)! (or someone arbs it.)

PS This is why I think that the top 2 deals aren't real/actual, because no way Undisc would have let those free sats sit there for 9 months: take the deal from bullish, then convert back useless CCs by selling them to darth... your only ante is 2x LN fees, which will be covered by the gains on the deal from bullish.

reply
130 sats \ 2 replies \ @AGORA OP 2 Sep
PS This is why I think that the top 2 deals aren't real/actual, because no way Undisc would have let those free sats sit there for 9 months: take the deal from bullish, then convert back useless CCs by selling them to darth... your only ante is 2x LN fees, which will be covered by the gains on the deal from bullish.

Wow, inside arbitrage. I never tougth it would be even possible.

PS I think I found a way to merge it all

reply
5 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 2 Sep

I think it's still wrong based on your screenshot, haha.

Bid should be at the bottom in the order it is now, ask at the top in reverse order of what you have right now. This is also what @0xbitcoiner shows.

That way the truth is in the middle: on the bid side, the best deal is closest to the middle bar (i.e. on the top of bids), and on the ask side, the best deal is also closest to the middle bar (i.e. at the bottom of asks)

reply
5 sats \ 0 replies \ @AGORA OP 2 Sep

ok I will invert the order of the bids too. But still I feel the bids should be at the top-left and the asks at bottom-right

reply
130 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner 2 Sep

You’re saying you prefer it this way?

I prefer it like this. Can’t argue about taste! Haha.

reply
44 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 2 Sep

Either way is fine for me, I actually prefer the same as you. At the time of my comment the implementation didn't normalize so the best offer on the bid side was folded into the worst offer on the ask side. Either way is fine, it just has to not compare apples to shoesoles.

reply