The Coinbase team has manually disabled my account without explanation -- I'm skeptical that removing / re-adding my bank account would re-enable my trading and transferring between coinbase / coinbase pro. I'm also not sure that I'd even be able to complete those actions given that things are disabled for me right now.
Are you able to login to your account? If so, go to Settings > Linked Account. Remove your bank account, then add it again.
Had a similar problem, similar reaction to yours. I tried this and it fixed my problem instantly after 2 months watching at the market crashing... I saw a post on Reddit explaining that this trick was the only thing that worked.
I just called 10 minutes ago and got a general support staff on the phone and then later escalated to a support supervisor -- they said it is in the hands of the "specialist" and it is up to the "specialist" to review the case and fix my account. They could not give me any time update nor could they explain the situation.
So I'm still locked out of my money and in the dark as to why.
They're going to give new tools to institutional traders. Co-location, FIX market data, lending & margin financing products, professional crypto secure storage ('coinbase custody') etc. etc. They'll be faster than non-institutions and have trading options unavailable to the rest of us.
Right now, the institutions have to play on a level playing field with us one-man teams.
This suite of products will give them their pay-to-win advantages to keep us little guys from being the fastest and best in the market.
I have the fastest bot on GDAX right now, that will only last until these new services are introduced -- since I can't afford to pay $XXk a month for the privilege.
Edit: If you're reading this from your chair at a HFT firm, send me a message if your company is interested in the fastest bot :)
Bold claim, and funnily enough, you are the 3rd or 4th team I've run into this week that claim to be the fastest trading system on GDAX. The Consensus conference brings out these kind of conversations:)
What are you basing your claim off of, I've seen some pretty impressive use of C++ and one team that is starting to burn simple strategies into FPGA's.
What sort of time from network stack to network stack are you consistently getting? ie time from when your network card receives a message until when your network card gets your reply?
These posts kill me. Anyone who says they are burning strategies onto fpgas when they trade with GDAX has no idea what they or doing or talking about. The platforms are way too immature for this to matter. Source, was in real HFT for 10+ years.
> What are you basing your claim off of, I've seen some pretty impressive use of C++ and one team that is starting to burn simple strategies into FPGA's.
What does low latency buy you in crypto trading? What sort of strategies are people running that requires low latency?
You mean Exchange Arbitrage? There's already a 20 something kid doing this and claims to be making millions in profits.[1]. Asian exchanges typically have slightly higher prices than US and European exchanges. They also react a lot worse to bad news and go lower than in US, European exchanges.
I'm tracking order positions with an in memory orderbook. When gdax accepts my order I know where I end up. I average spot 1.45 when the spread changes. It's hard to get closer to perfect 1.00 because of limit taker orders which, if placed right, always get 1.00 after the taker portion is calculated and the maker is placed 1 cent from other other side.
If you really do HFT trading I'd be more curious to know whether your algorithms can scale up and remain profitable with more exposure. If that were the case acquiring more capital shouldn't really be an issue for you.
Get your track record audited and then shop yourself to Chicago prop firms. If things look robust, you should have no problem getting capital on a profit split.
It would seem that anyone who could consistently arbitrage a currency OR synthetically front run transactions would be able to capture a great deal of value extremely quickly. Further, they should have an easily identifiable and intelligible record of success. Have a pitch deck ready if you don't already.
Either one should either generate the capital you need, get your system bought by a big player, or get you hired with a big salary by a big player.
IMO, the SEC accredited investor rules are in place to make it a federal crime to scam non-accredited investors. Though I tend to be anti-regulation in general, I think these are good laws as I can only imagine how many investment scams would be running otherwise.
They make it a federal crime to offer securities to non-wealthy people. Characterizing all such offers as scams is a prejudicial over-simplification, and the kind of sweeping and presumptive generalization that rationalizes repression.
No, they made it a federal crime to offer non-registered securities to non-wealthy people.
Registered securities (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc.) are widely available to non-wealthy people and are probably a better investment for most of them, frankly, because of the concentration of risk inherent in a small dollar portfolio of non-registered securities and the idea that registered securities will have some standardized reporting requirements and that one could rely on the market to do a certain amount of due diligence and price discovery.
Non-registered securities are those that are issued by any company not worth over something on the order of $100 million, since any company smaller than that cannot afford to get their securities registered.
Anyway, this distinction doesn't change my point: offers of such securities to unaccredited investors are not categorically "scams". This kind of critical reductionism is reckless to individual rights and liberty.
Companies can get registered fairly cheaply; a company with almost no assets or value could do it.
The expense comes from meeting the requirements to be registered on a large exchange like NYSE or NASDAQ (both of which are non-governmental entities). This is why small companies that have public stock are traded on "penny" exchanges.
In any case, I don't see any mom and pop shops offering their customers stock. There are only 10,000 companies with stock on the OTC market, out of 30 million in the US.
I think you are being uncharitable to the point they made. Since there are accredited investors, if a bad guy tries to talk an un-accredited investor into buying into a dressed up Ponzi scheme it is a federal crime and thus can be investigated and treated as such. The goal of this is to keep main street investors safe. Yes, it does put some limits on individual freedom but I think this is one area where the trade-offs has been chosen decently well.
No, anyone that offers an unregistered security to a non-wealthy (unaccredited) investor is committing a federal crime. It's disingenuous to ignore the full scope of the law, by not mentioning how it criminalizes certain classes of victimless interaction.
>>Yes, it does put some limits on individual freedom but I think this is one area where the trade-offs has been chosen decently well.
This is Big Brother ideology. No one in a free society should have their freedom restricted.
The practical results of this paternalism have been disastrous too, so it can't be justified on consequentialist grounds. Practically all small businesses are denied direct access to public capital markets atm.
That's probably trillions in lost economic gains and potentially a massive contributor to income inequality.
When you create gatekeepers, and prohibit anyone from transacting without their intermediation, you create a concentrated power structure that inhibits economic development and exacerbates income inequality.
The new crowdfunding rules are a tiny step in reversing this dire situation, but the real solution is to stop treating the adult population like children that need to be protected from their own bad judgment.
Nothing stops an unaccredited investor betting the farm on Enron. If there is a less perceived risk, people will use more leverage. So all of this "protection" just amounts to restricted opportunity.
Several people went to federal prison and Arthur Anderson went out of business over the Enron shenanigans. This seems as much a deterrent as the Securites Act of 1934. If you’re willing to risk federal prison, you can solicit non-accredited investors for unregistered securities.
You think so? Due to inflation, I think the bar for "accredited investor" feels pretty low these days. HN must be full of middle class individuals with $1M+ USD networth.
>>HN must be full of middle class individuals with $1M+ USD networth.
For the HN demographic that doesn't own a house and "only" pays rent, I'd agree with you. But another portion of the HN demographic that does own a flat or property may not qualify, as the definition of an accredited investor (at least in the US[1]) is $1M+ USD of investible assets excluding their primary residence.
Some of this demographic will meet the other (income) test:
a natural person with income exceeding $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint income with a spouse exceeding $300,000 for those years and a reasonable expectation of the same income level in the current year
The regulated financial sector is incredibly concentrated, and often it became regulated as a result of lobbying by large financial firms. New York's Bitlicense for example was lobbied for by banks and it resulted in all but the largest cryptocurrency firms exiting New York.
"Little guys" are the products, rather than the consumers, on those platforms. This is already true to a large extent and will be true in larger and larger proportions. DRW, Jump Trading, Hudson River Trading, State Street and Virtu are all active on cryptomarkets.
Here's a thought: a trader who has to rely on being the fastest is like a retailer who has to rely on being the cheapest. (Not to diss you, you have nothing but respect from me)
Sure you do. A particular cryptotoken’s network transaction through-put is unrelated to the latency and max-events-per-time period of on-exchange trading.
I started with 5-7k. I primarily hold, sell when the price is high and then buy the dip.
I once made 30k from 400$. It's ridiculous. I bought 400$ worth of BTC a year or two ago. BTC price went up. At that point I had ~3000$. I sold BTC and bought IOTA. IOTA was pumped, I sold it for $10,000. I went all in and bought Ripple at 0.94$. They pumped the price, I was able to sell at 3$, making a whopping $30k+.
Right now I have one of (or the?) fastest HFT bot on gdax -- I define "fastest" as being on average the first bot to re place maker orders at best when the price moves. With 1 being the first order in line it's currently averaging 1.39 on price changes -- so it gets a ton of matches.
The bot uses a NN for predicting the price. I've been working on it for 3 months and so far the bot is profitable.
If anyone out there is interested in this space I'm looking for a partner. Also open to business offers.
The whole pipeline (data collection, data processing, trading bot, backtesting, model training, etc.) is built on golang, aws, and training with keras.
Yep. Their trust problem is also very well earned both from the APIs they've killed/changed and from the long list of Google products in the graveyard.
Also have killed APIs/Products that are extremely difficult to transition from with short notice. For example, they gave ~4 months for the Google Wallet for the web transition, and no data portability for businesses with users on subscriptions.
Stripe, for example, has a data portability clause that allows you to move card data to another payments processor that meets some compliance standards.
Regardless of if you get 4 months notice or 1 year notice you still have to do the work to migrate and you're still stuck with the sunk cost of investing in/learning a doomed platform.
That's why I wouldn't build a business on Google, because they have a long history of killing things when they aren't wildly profitable/successful. A $10m/yr profit product is considered a distraction of valuable engineer time unless it has some ulterior goal for the company.
And I'm not saying they should change -- they do what's right for them. One engineer working on some distraction project could instead be moved to ads quality and end up making a change worth anywhere from hundreds of millions/yr to billions.
Thanks for pointing this out @Kearneyandy. If you'd like your product on CommuteKit, submit it there. We'll review it, and add it if we think it's of value.
