there’s a move now towards 24/7 trading. I guess we’ll see how the rigors of the trading environment mesh with zero down time. I’m sure the rollout will be slow and steady.
I've always said that with infinite money we could get 100% uptime, but no one has infinite money. Trading firms are about as close as I can imagine to infinite money though.
I image you'd have to use shadow execution, where you roll out a full second copy, run every transaction through both, and compare the results. And then, only after a certain time, switch traffic to the new infra and tear down the old.
But you would need a ton of extra hardware (more than double) and a lot of ways to keep data in sync. And of course if you put an LLM or other non-deterministic system in there, that's a whole other can of worms.
Like I said, a fun problem to solve. :)
I couldn’t do it. I like infra and all but it’s just not my cup of tea. Def true that in a trading pov the trade must be executed. It must settle. It must work. Or capital flight will be huge.
If done right, it would be a complete separate system. Separate IP addresses and all.
I really can imagine a system in which the Monday trading system runs all day and then turns off at a predetermined time. Then it has 15 minutes to produce and disseminate a final list of all transactions, after which it becomes completely unavailable and is ready for maintenance. Any subsequent amendment to Monday’s trading would be done out of band. Open orders at the end of Monday do not carry over immediately to Tuesday, although front ends are welcome to recreate them. Everyone would understand that liquidity would be thin for the first few seconds after the system rolls over.
For added fun, Monday and Tuesday could actually be allowed to overlap in a hypothetical trading system, although the market participants might not love this.
[0] which is not the same for all instruments, and holidays mean that not every instrument rolls over meaningfully every day.
I work with a major one and, being honest, from day one it was obvious they were incompetent. They employ a huge number of engineers and are unable to deliver basic features at any reasonable pace. Not even remotely close to it either (as in: you ask them to do something, they say yes, execs say yes, you get a deadline, date comes...deployment difficulties, environment not working, run around goes on and on forever).
I remember the CEO got on a call with us at the start and was slapping himself on the back saying they had no downtime...because they were able to do maintenance when markets shut (and have heard very bad things about how that goes). But it is 24/7 world now, our service is up 24/7 and, of course, this led to massive issues in time due to the very different expectations around delivery/quality. Our execs were impressed, our engineers said this was a bad sign. And, ofc, it transpired that they were total amateurs (to be clear, this is one of the biggest exchanges in the world) and were unable to deliver.
To come back to my original statement: there is a company of 16 people total who is, from the point of view of customers, delivering features faster. It is difficult to understate how insane that is.
It depends what you mean by easy. Even if you are using a slow chain, you still have to compete for finite block space, you still have to work out how to risk/matching fast, etc.
With chains built for exchange use, operating them easier, that is why they don't require thousands of engineers. But the actual technical capability of the system is significantly in excess of tradfi exchanges. For example, risk function is real-time on-chain as opposed to EoD settlement. This significantly changes the possible feature set. Once you have built it, it is very easy...the question is why big exchanges rely so heavily on eod processes? The answer is: they are bad at engineering.
I have a really hard time believing something decentralized will surpass the the physical limitations of speed of light and low level assembler from C++ optimizations without any GC
also the fact that hyperliquid sequencing of orders is opaque and not opensource, and there is indeed latency in the consensus, I cannot believe yet there are p99 stability in completed transactions
Disruptor is written in Java. LMAX itself is a tiny exchange that largely deals with institutions so doesn't have the same message volume as retail facing.
What language do you think validators run? So much stuff that makes absolutely no sense..
Order sequencing is not opaque, that is one of the primary benefits of DEX that aren't decentralized. SOL has issues with sequencing but there are attempts to fix this (Jane Street is one of the places working on this). This is a point that I made above about block space, and isn't relevant for Hyperliquid.
Very few people want the financial system to be a contractual suicide pact - they want it to be predictable, but when the unpredictable happens - they want the retail and institutional investor to be protected (the HFT players can go beat each other up - no one will really cry about them). And unpredictable can be anything from a power event taking out multiple exchanges in the NJ triangle (Sandy hurricane) to a cyber-attack (never happened yet) to a flash-crash driven by algorithms from multiple HFT driving each other nuts (happened at least once).
So, it is not EOD processes as such, but the ability to pause, assess the entire system holistically, and then correct it before it blows up the portfolios of everyone holding a 401k. So even though the exchanges _could_ got to 24/7 trading, I'd be surprised if we just went away from cyclical 24-hr based windows of settlement.
That costs money, indirectly
Also, I would say that probabilistic finality is one of the main issues that tradfi has with crypto (which also exists in the case of margined exchanges, for the reasons you mention). Market participants expect trades to be final, the idea that they can be rolled back is extremely unattractive.
The reason you don't need to stop the market in crypto is because you don't have EOD reconcliation. If everything settles immediately and the risk engine can keep up with the market then there is no credit risk (there have also been multiple solutions to this problem in crypto, none of them involved waiting until the end of the day to see what happens when they try to cross everyone). The reason they have market halts is to limit credit risk from the market moving in one direction and winners being unable to recover gains from the losers. It is fair to say crypto DEX haven't solved this with ADLs but they start from a better place and the higher level of competition means that innovation to invent new solutions is actually happening. The reason exchanges have shit tech is because there is no competition.
I feel like your comment is baiting because you surely know what happened at LME with trades getting cancelled because they would have caused LME insiders to lose money. Hunt Brothers caused massive issues for clearing house, HK government had to bail out clearing house...there are massive issues with the current system.
So, to your point - yep, it is not final. But it is unattractive _to the market making and prime brokers and similar players_ which the regulators do not care much about.
I don’t think you have made a case for anything yet.
HL has been tested up to $8bn/day in volume. The gap in resources is several orders of magnitude so if big exchanges were doing 1000x more volume it wouldn't matter because HL is literally running with a handful of engineers vs thousands. In reality, HL is doing 25-40% of CME, for example.
Isn't the plan more like 23/5 like is already the case for several markets?
I can't see the standard sessions moving more 9:30am/4pm weekdays to 24/7. I take it they'd still let, at least, one hour off for technical reasons.
If I'm not mistaken it's the reason several markets are 23/5 and not 24/5: that one hour of downtime is basically for servers/maintenance right? (maybe someone can chime in)
P.S: I take it technically there's 24/7 trading already seen that cryptocurrencies exchanges are opened 24/7 (I'm not sure: but I think that's the case) but I don't think those do anywhere near the volume of, say, options trading on equities during standard sessions (40 Gbit/s with peak over 70 Gbit/s for the full options feed).
Every so often a new stock is listed or a stock ticker is changed or a stock is split, etc. There are smaller changes every single day, like to the settlement date of your trade.
It's very convenient to be able to restart all your systems at 5pm, have them all load the updated reference data, and start them again in time for 6pm (or 7pm, or 4am tomorrow...). Even if you trade stocks and options and currencies and futures all over the world, a quirk of the calendar means they're basically all closed between 4 and 5pm Chicago time.
Of course it's possible in principle to build systems where all this is dynamic and you can seamlessly trade with the old configuration at 4:59:59.999 and start trading the new one a millisecond later. But literally everyone has built systems that don't work on this, that rely on being able to chunk the continuous passage of time into discrete days. It would be painful to rearchitect them all now.
Crypto trading has been 24/7 since it began.
Makes things damn hard indeed, because you have to truly learn asynchronicity, CQRS and complex live migrations. (Incidentally, engineers who have worked on such systems tend to be over-represented in extreme HA businesses.)