Maybe you aren't being pedantic: are arguing the intent of the regulation was to have market-makers make markets only as a bulwark against single whale-orders that will probably be thrown out as clearly erroneous?
That is a real role-redefinition. A quoting obligation that falls apart if the big-order trader on the other side randomly decided to break his order two (or N) near-simultaneous orders?
Ideally, the order will never execute as the regular market will handle the volume. Things are in bad shape when you have to dig into the Market Maker's pockets.
order type description: https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/content/productsservices/tradin...
Yep, the order type is only for market-makers. That's pedantic too; I only ever talked about it in the context of market-makers, as an example of place-cancel not being the same as spoofing. I'm not sure if you are pointing this out to say I am conflating them. Maybe I should have picked a more noble non-spoofing example?
That's not true, the order could execute if someone slams the market with a massive buy / sell order. It auto adjusts to stay away from the active market. The idea behind the order type is that you don't want to be at the current 'market price' but rather just outside to handle big fish. You might argue this sucks, but the the big fish don't mind as it gives them more liquidity that wouldn't otherwise exist. The trade also lightens load as you don't have to constantly send cancels.