undefined | Better HN

0 pointsskippyboxedhero11h ago0 comments

Fastest ones are processing a block every 10ms.

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.

0 comments

foobar1000010h ago

The EOD reconciliation (and corresponding inability to settle a position in milliseconds) is a feature - it allows "obvious erroneous trade" roll-back mechanisms, etc.

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.

woah8h ago

> they want the retail and institutional investor to be protected

That costs money, indirectly

foobar100005h ago

But it does allow these investors to participate in the markets without losing their shirts - and the lack of such liquidity would impact the market more so than the cost of the risk mitigation - which as you completely correctly noted is not free - both in first and second order terms.

infecto10h ago

Hyperliquid while big in crypto is still small compared to mainstream financial markets.

I don’t think you have made a case for anything yet.

itsthecourier10h ago

so let me get this straight Skippy, you're saying you got better performance and reliability than the LMAX disruptor with Multicast that runs inside many big exchanges?

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

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse