You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Lumifer comments on Open Thread for February 11 - 17 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Coscott 11 February 2014 06:08PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (325)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 12 February 2014 03:19:08PM *  2 points [-]

EDIT: This particular site does margin trading differently to how I thought margin trading normally works. So... disregard everything I just said?

Bitcoin economy and a possible violation of the efficent market hypososis. With the growing maturity of the Bitcoin ecosystem, there has appeared a website which allows leveraged trading, meaning that people who think they know which way the price is going can borrow money to increase their profits. At the time of writing, the bid-ask spread for the rates offered is 0.27% - 0.17% per day, which is 166% - 86% per annum. Depositors are not actually trading themselves, so the only way failure modes I can see is if the exchange takes the money and runs, if there is a catastrophic failure of the trading engine, or if they get hacked. I Gwern estimates that a Bitcoin exchange has a 1% chance of failure per month based upon past performance, but that was written some time ago, and the increased legal recognition of Bitcoin plus people learning from mistakes should decrease this probability. On the other hand the biggest exchange MtGox froze withdrawals a few days ago, but note that they claim that this is a temporary technical fault.  As additional information, Bitfinex's website states "The company is incorporated in Hong Kong as a Limited Liability Corporation.", which would seem to decrease the likelihood of the company stealing the money. In conclusion, even assuming a pessimistic 1% chance of failure per month I reach a conservative estimate of 65% APR expected returns (assuming that the interest is constant at the lower 0.17% figure) . So why aren't people flocking to the website, starting a bidding war to drive the interest rate down to a tenth of its current value? Unless there is something wrong with my previous calculations, the best explanation I can think of is that it simply has not generated enough publicity. Perhaps also everyone in the Bitcoin community is assuming the price is going to increase by 10000%, or they are looking for the next big altcoin, or they are daytrading, but either way a boring but safe option doesn't seem so interesting. In conclusion, this seems to be an example where the efficent market hypothosis does not hold, due to insufficent propagation of information.

Disclaimers: I don't have shares in Bitfinex, and I hope this doesn't look like spam. This is a theoretical discussion of the EMH, not finanal advice, and if you lose your money I am not responsible. I'm not sure whether this deserves its own post outside of discussion – please let me know.

Comment author: Lumifer 12 February 2014 04:10:37PM 2 points [-]

the only way failure modes I can see is if the exchange takes the money and runs, if there is a catastrophic failure of the trading engine, or if they get hacked.

The exchange can just fail in a large variety of ways and close (go bankrupt). If you're not "insured" you are exposed to the trading risk and insurance costs what, about 30%? and, of course, it doesn't help you with the exchange counterparty risk.

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 12 February 2014 04:58:41PM 0 points [-]

30% per annum? Even if this were true (and this sounds quite high, as I mentioned with Gwerns 1% per month estimate) then providing liquidity with them would still be +EV (86% increase vs 30% risk).

Comment author: Lumifer 12 February 2014 05:10:24PM 2 points [-]

Um, did you make your post without actually reading the Bitfinex site about how it works..?

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 12 February 2014 05:26:27PM *  1 point [-]

Upvoted for pointing out my stupid mistake (I assumed it works in a certain way, and skipped readig the vital bit)

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 12 February 2014 05:20:50PM 1 point [-]

Ahh, oops. I think I missed the last line... I thought if someone exceeded their margin, they were forced to close their position so that no money was lost.