Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <3A9A9EA7.C7DFF806@beamreachnetworks.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:21:27 -0800
From: "Eric M. Monsler" <emonsler AT beamreachnetworks DOT com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mithras <mithras AT dhp DOT com>
CC: horizonx AT arbitragex DOT net, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com, ArbitrageX AT yahoogroups DOT com
Subject: Re: How possible and how easy?
References: <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 21 DOT 0102250850021 DOT 30791-100000 AT shell DOT dhp DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I believe that the motivation for "semi-open" is that in an automated
trading system, the code makes trades based on market data and it's own
algorithm, and is expected to make a profit on those trades (in
aggreagate).

If the algorithm was open, everyone could use it.  There is (assuming
the algorithm works) some finite profit-per-time opportunity in the
market before prices are driven to a state in which the algorithm is not
profitable.  That profit opportunity is divided amoung those using the
algorithm.  Hence, one would no more expose a successful market strategy
than one would expose a credit card number.

The question that arises is, why would an independent developer wish to
contribute to such a project?  

The only reason I can fathom would be if the basic application was GPL
or LGPL, but that trading algorithms were either loadable (if app is
LPGL), or were e.g. text-specified in an input file, so that they could
be considered 'data' if the application was GPL.

In that case, a developer who contributed to the system could expect a
complete, robust, automated trading framework in which to experiment
with his or her own algorithms.  Many people might desire this.

Clearly, they have considered this, given the statement that
"Significant contributions would qualify for either some access to the
final product or some profit sharing."  But if that were the only
motivation for a developer, e.g. if the open portion of the resulting
application was not a useful tool by itself, the question of "Who judges
significance?" becomes, um, significant.

Eric M. Monsler

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple