[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
File: 207 KB, 3139x693, Untitled-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18241645 No.18241645 [Reply] [Original]

Anybody noticed either binance or tradingview rigged the LINK/tetherusd pair where we got that flash crash to $0.001?

(left is before, right is after)

Can someone explain why they changed this?

>> No.18241839

>>18241645
holly shit, it's real
how the fuck did they changed that

>> No.18241907

>>18241645
>Can someone explain why they changed this?
I kinda don't blame them. That flash crash made the chart so hard to read. I started loading up OKEx's LINKUSDT to work around it.

>> No.18243087

>>18241839
by removing ticks... isn't that big of a deal.
(ticks = every single trade)

>> No.18243103
File: 160 KB, 1312x612, Screenshot (131).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18243103

>>18241645
Looks the same to me, just took this

>> No.18243106

Makes sense. That retarded market sell is a clear outlier on the chart.

>> No.18243112

>>18241645
looks like it was tradingview, the dump's still visible on binance.

>> No.18243121

>>18241839
2.5% of trades are clipped. Chart shows 97.5% price action.

>> No.18243203

>>18243103
>>18243121
you both are retarded as fuck
grow some brain on a tree

>> No.18243222

>>18241645
It's called outlier correction.

>> No.18243244

>>18243222
>the true price of 0.001 is an outlier

But seriously they shouldn't do this, the event still holds information about liquidity and about people's intentions so they shouldn't just pretend it never happened.

>> No.18243260

>>18243244
IDK. Yes, I understand, but what if it was an algo running amok or a fat-finger trade? The flash crash was so bad I have a hard time believing it holds information about intentions.

>> No.18243289

>>18243260
Alright I shouldn't have included the point about intentions as you're right it was definitely bots going wild.
But I think the liquidity argument is still valid as in ' you need a volume of [volume] to be able to crash it to zero' or something like that. I just think it should be left to the trader how to interpret a given event, not the service provider.

>> No.18243427

>>18243244
Nah, the 0.001 was a scam order to rape the retards who will try to market sell.
You can't place an order that low on Binance. The excuse was that the order was placed years ago right after they listed LINK and the fail safes weren't active yet.

>> No.18243431

>>18243203
What I do wrong senpai? I look at chart, I see red wick

>> No.18243445

>>18243260
>>18243289
Brainlets, you can only place orders 30% above or below the current price.
But then there was this order at $0.001.
Some swinglinker market dumped 800k of LINK trying to push the price down, but the orderbook was was empty after $2.00. so he sold into the next available order, which was 0.001. 600k linkies for $0.001. I bet he killed himself.

>> No.18243475
File: 13 KB, 300x300, 1572244419544.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18243475

>>18243445
You think he really did? Man, he'd been talking about it for a while. We shoulda got him some help

>> No.18243489
File: 5 KB, 226x223, pepe_hangout.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18243489

>>18243475
"swingies will swing" is not a meme.

>> No.18245043

>>18241645
That's pretty normal, change it to 5 minutes and go to that day - you'll see the full drop.
The amount of data in used in 'daily' prices points will be reduced to averages for high and low, and close.
Basically data is averaged to help the chart load faster.

>> No.18245108

>>18243427
It was OBVIOUSLY a retard market selling through the entire order book.
Does that sound weird? That happened because your fickle crypto scam is so thinly padded that a single idiot can crash it to zero.
>fail safe
Lol. Never change bro

>> No.18245709

>>18241907
This.

>> No.18246437

>>18245108
Binance is a scam exchange.

>> No.18246528

>>18243427
you have to be a newfag to think this

>> No.18246532

>>18243445
>>18243475

It was likely Binance who did the dump. Normal people can't place orders that low, and when Binance was question they claimed someone entered the order something like 8 seconds after they made the pair before they could put in the price controls that set the minimum buy orders at .01 I think. They claimed they don't delete orders so they let it stay. The whole thing is fishy as fuck.

>> No.18246622

>>18246532
They have no reason to initiate the dump with their own link stat if it were their buy order. It was definitely an outsider who market sold hoping to push the price down. But it was Binance's buy order that was set in place to catch the event all the buy orders were filled. Binance is super scummy in that regard as they could have canceled the order at any time. So it had to be theirs.

>> No.18246753

>>18246622
The order book was incredibly thin though at the time. It make sense that Binance had both the buy order set AND did the dump as they could also leverage a short AND liquidate longs in the process. I stand by my thoughts they were part of the entire thing.

>> No.18246778

>>18246753
>>18246622
via futures contracts that is. They probably made a metric fuckton from that play.

>> No.18247317

>>18243427
found the retard

>> No.18247366
File: 87 KB, 720x1520, binance_link_1584659998519.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18247366

>>18241645