>Conversely, if sub-second resolution is somehow "a good", then by extension sub-millisecond price discovery is "even better". There are some insane people that state this kind of gibberish with a straight face.

if sub-second Internet latency is somehow "a good", then by extension sub-millisecond Internet latency is "even better". There are some insane people that state this kind of gibberish with a straight face.

If millisecond are good, then surely microseconds are even better! Next... nanosecond resolution Internet latency for the uuuuuultimate speed of information.

Surely this is crazy talk!

Would you be happy if regulators mandated that airplane control systems can only sample their input at most every second?

HFT systems look a lot like feedback driven control loops. Mandating a minimum resolution would be ridiculous.

If what you're sampling and responding to is noise, then yes, it's pointless.

If what you're sampling and responding to is noise, and the responses themselves generate self-perpetuating expanding feedbacks, it's worse than useless: it's actively harmful.

> This. A million times this. All possible arguments for price discovery are totally invalidated by regular market closures.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the really big markets are OTC.

> If millisecond are good, then surely microseconds are even better! Next... nanosecond resolution price discovery for the uuuuuultimate liquidity.

If I go to market to get a price, I'd quite like that price "now", not at some arbitrary point in the future. Increasing the resolution reduces the amount of time I have to wait.

They’ll only stop when they get to Planck time resolution price discovery

If they achieved Plank Time Resolution I don't think they would need to be in the finance industry to make money :P