The original claim was that if we did by the minutes updated then there would be issues with more buyers than sellers. This was the original claim that was being used as a reason for why a minute frequency would be problematic.

I haven't seen any real explanation for why that is problematic for the reasons discussed in this thread.

Less frequent updates means less frequent available information to trade on, means less advantage for the HFT algos who won't have the advantage of being able to trade in the milliseconds anyoore, something humans can't do.

If one thinks HFT is a problem then thats a perfectly fine solution which isn't from what I can se giving problems of more buyers than sellers.

If one doesn't think it's a problem then sure we don't need to compete with them but at least to my understanding the premise of this whole discussion was that someone suggested slowing down the frequency and the answer was that this would be problematic.

I wasn't responding to that. My original reply to fr0sty was somewhat of a tangent. I can see where we might have been having two separate arguments with each without knowing it because of that.

> Less frequent updates means less frequent available information to trade on, means less advantage for the HFT algos who won't have the advantage of being able to trade in the milliseconds anyoore, something humans can't do.

The advantage of HFT isn't necessarily the frequency, which is just a way to increase number of trades, but speed, which is what allows them to capitalize on information before the competition. Changing how often they trade will not affect the real reason they do so, which is to capitalize on market information before the competition. That race still exists.

> If one thinks HFT is a problem then thats a perfectly fine solution which isn't from what I can se giving problems of more buyers than sellers.

My stance is that even if you think it's a problem, I don't think it provides any sort of solution. They can still make trades much closer to the cut-off and much sooner after the market coalesces than any human, so humans are still unable to compete in that particular area.

> If one doesn't think it's a problem...

I'm not sure how I feel about them, but I don't see "humans competing" as a valid reason. HFT algorithms are humans competing, just at a meta level. Whether it comes down to mental ability to analyze markets and physical reflexes without HFT algos, or it comes down to intelligence of the design of the algorithms, it's still humans competing (we could have the same argument decades ago regarding humans filling out order sheets by pen and pencil and those trading through a terminal, the technology doesn't replace, it enables).

You take that away you take away the advantage of most HFT. I don't see how thats not part of the solution.

HFT algorithms are humans competing at a meta level which begs the question whether the value it provides is meta too. I.e. I have yet to see any benefit HFT brings to anyone but those who do HFT. It doesn't seem to help the market as far as I can see.

It's done as I said purely because it's possible with computers to trade there and it seems to be a privatized version of a tobin tax.

I think this is the fundamental difference in our points of view. I've outlined why I think the frequency is a red-herring, and the speed at which they can execute on information relative to other actors is the real item in question, changing the interval at which the orders are realized doesn't really affect if they are still handled on a first come first serve basis. If they aren't then HFT may be affected more adversely, but that may bring other adverse behavior that hasn't been accounted for.

You either aren't addressing this aspect of my argument at all, or I'm entirely missing it in your responses (which is entirely possible, mental context can affect interpretation quite a bit). I don't know how to continue without you either addressing that aspect of my argument, or pedantically pointing out where you already have so I don't miss it again, since at this point we're just saying the same thing to each other over and over. :/

Put another way. If there is no millisecond updates then there is no HFT trading. It vanishes completely. No one is having any issues with this new reality being first come first serve. So again your argument is attacking a strawman.

We know how the market looked like without HFT because we lived in a world without it. What consequences are you talking about?

It's also worth mentioning that the stock market stops every day and over the whole weekend so if reality was the key goal then it should always be open.

In other words we decide the frequency and as far as I understand HFT it provides no value because it's not reacting on outside information it's reacting on price volatility in the milliseconds which isn't really a reflection of anything much more than price fluctuation at the milliseconds.