@sheegaon I saw your post, and thought it seemed very sensible. The proliferation of so many risk related tags, not synonyms, but "risk-neutral", "risk-neutrality" (more like word forms) will become a mess. I have been itching to clean up these more obvious sort of tag messes, but don't have the necessary points to make tag synonym suggestions yet. One of the answers to your post responded with a more conceptual approach, that pertained to a different sort of tag problem, and that sounded good.

@sheegaon The benefit provided by high-frequency trading (increased liquidity, narrower bid/ask spreads) is countered by the potential market instability that HFT (might) create. This isn't anything new, but I too have noticed a lot more interest in this question lately, on Reddit, in the financial/econ blogosphere, even Reuters and the US SEC. I think that's great, actually!

@sheegaon Because right now, HFT is something of a "black box" (ha, to say the least)! As you said, if certain parties are making large profits using HFT, who is on the losing side of the transactions? Is there more to it, not actually zero-sum bleak? If that's true, I'd love to know why not! Without anything to indicate otherwise, HFT seems like a net cost to society. But I don't have factual evidence to indicate otherwise, as HFT is mostly proprietary with minimal disclosure req's.

@sheegaon Going back to your earlier post on meta.quant.SE : meta.quant.stackexchange.com/questions/176/… I wonder why it still displays here as "Question score of zero". In fact, it has a score of 4 up votes and two favorite stars on meta.quant.se now! Not a big deal, though. And yes, I do stop by here.

@sheegaon I visit the Personal Finance and Money chat, which has more activity than Quant, but I hoping for different sorts of conversations here than there. (That is a good site though, really, assuming it keeps up its momentum). I love investment finance, taxation, regulation, transactional markets, all of it...