Poll
Question: Closing BTC Price June 28:
$0 - 5 (2.6%)
<$7,000 - 4 (2.1%)
$7,000-$7,499 - 0 (0%)
$7,500-$7,999 - 0 (0%)
$8,000-$8,499 - 1 (0.5%)
$8,500-$8,999 - 3 (1.6%)
$9,000-$9,499 - 4 (2.1%)
$9,500-$9,999 - 27 (14.2%)
$10,000-$10,499 - 26 (13.7%)
$10,500-10,999 - 15 (7.9%)
$11,000-$11,499 - 14 (7.4%)
$11,500-$12,000 - 17 (8.9%)
>$12,000 - 59 (31.1%)
>$20,000 - 15 (7.9%)
Total Voters: 190

Pages: « 1 ... 8052 8053 8054 8055 8056 8057 8058 8059 8060 8061 8062 8063 8064 8065 8066 8067 8068 8069 8070 8071 8072 8073 8074 8075 8076 8077 8078 8079 8080 8081 8082 8083 8084 8085 8086 8087 8088 8089 8090 8091 8092 8093 8094 8095 8096 8097 8098 8099 8100 8101 [8102] 8103 8104 8105 8106 8107 8108 8109 8110 8111 8112 8113 8114 8115 8116 8117 8118 8119 8120 8121 8122 8123 8124 8125 8126 8127 8128 8129 8130 8131 8132 8133 8134 8135 8136 8137 8138 8139 8140 8141 8142 8143 8144 8145 8146 8147 8148 8149 8150 8151 8152 ... 24400 »
  Reply  |  Watch  |  Notify  |  Mark unread  |  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21253989 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (68 posts by 16 users deleted.)
oda.krell
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007



View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
September 02, 2014, 05:24:03 PM

in previous discussions, you chose to include Chinese volume 1:1 in your analysis (i.e. you consider it as "real" as the volume on the other exchanges), while I consider large parts of Chinese volume meaningless for most analysis, at least when comparing cross exchanges or aggregating volume.

I am still not convinced that a "deflation factor" is justified there.

Volume is interesting, I presume, as a measure of liquidity.  Zero fees bring in more traders and also allows traders to trade on smaller spreads.  So there are both more coins in the market, and the same coins get traded many more times per day.

Should the second effect be discounted, or should it be counted as measure of liquidity, just like the first one?

Repeated trading does not provide liquidity for large buys or sells, but it shoud work for smaller ones.  With zero fees, a trader who just bought at 500$ may be willing to  sell again for 501$.  With fees, the same trader would probably hold back.   Thus, even with the same traders holding the same positions, a zero fee market would provide higher liquidity than one with fees.

Does this make sense?

In terms of market liquidity, you are absolutely right of course. But I'll try to clarify where I'm coming from when I look at volume as someone who tries to get trading insight from it:

1) volume now in relation to previous volume, same exchange, usually short history only. The much beloved "classical" TA that you appreciate so much. The simplest example is that of a capitulation and corresponding volume, for example. In that case, I don't care about volume being human or bot, based on the assumption that bot volume will represent an approximately equal share of volume during all periods (within some reasonable time frame).

2) aggregate volume over several exchanges, sometimes over a long history. This is the case where I heavily discount bot volume. Keep in mind why this volume analysis even exists: because for traders/speculators, it is perhaps the only available window into the actual on-exchange money flow (unless you happen to know the owners of mtgox or bitstamp, perhaps Tongue). Back in the golden days, it was easy to do volume price analysis like that, across eras and exchanges: there was only one relevant exchange. With the advent of zero fee exchanges, this methods obviously doesn't work anymore - automatized trading volume with very low cost (zero fee, aiming at high frequency of small profits) quite obviously (to me at least) does not bear the same relation to money flow into Bitcoin as does a large, costly human order.

How to go from the assumptions in 2) is far from obvious, but perhaps it gives you an idea why I'm interested in ways of adjusting CNY volume in the first place.