If you check the Sierrachart website, there are many other reasons why Teton is superior, not only the fact that you save 0.20 per RT
I just talked to Mariusz from AMP in the chatroom. He said very few traders so far are set up on it. It needs to be battle tested before they can offer it to their customers. So probably not any time soon. I noticed SC software already has an option to select AMP as clearing firm under trade service settings/Teton
In light of your new expensive fees (from 0.96 cents to 1.20!!) please close the agreement with Sierra Chart!! CME new fees is 0.05 per side (so 0.10 roud turn), but your new cost is +0.24 cents round turn from 0.96 to 1.20!!! With the new fees I will pay additional 250/300 USD monthly based on my volume
yes, we are close. AMP and Teton timeline. We will be performing internal live trade testing this week and next week. Once confirmed all our processes are flowing, we will bring on some (beta) clients. Once confirmed all processes are flowing with the (beta) clients we will make available for all our clients to request this setup. If you want to participate in the (beta) clients step, please PM us your AMP account number. We will create a list and contact you with the steps.
Any update about this topic? I asked for the beta program, but got no news. It is to be noted that the Teton route is the only way to get Sierra working with server sided bracket orders, a must for many traders.
We also had numerous reports yesterday of CQG users not able to cancel orders on CQG. Apparently this went on for hours? This kind of problem cannot happen with Teton order routing due to its design. Teton uses a single unified process handling order management, risk management and order routing on a single server with no external dependencies with backup Internet immediately available and backup server immediately available with real-time copy of all trading data. The server software which is Sierra Chart itself optimized for a server role is perfectly stable, extensively used and well tested. We do not see how a problem like this could ever occur with Teton. When we see problems like this with others like CQG, it really is 100% clear to us, that Teton uses a far more simpler architecture that is completely reliable and what the others are using is susceptible to problems like these. Information about Teton order routing: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing So CQG, is charging you, $0.10 per contract per fill and then you do not have properly managed server-side orders, and problems like this. Why use CQG for CME Group trading? Makes no sense. Additionally we route orders to the CME in Aurora. The time from when an order is received by the order management software until it gets to the exchange is approximately 250 µs. This is one fourth of a millisecond! CQG route orders from CH1 in Chicago. Away from the exchange. We maintain hardware in Aurora. We invest heavily, in the infrastructure there.
CQG has a routing problem for 20 minutes once every 18 months or so. So STFU about how BAD CQG is. Sheesh! I have been with them for 9 years, and I have seen the worst of their performance. And that is the crux of it. They are probably one of the most reliable feeds on this planet. If you wish to shill for Teton, do it with a membership. But DON'T crap on my reliable data feed. As if YOU guys have never had a problem for 20 minutes in your lifetime. Just whatever.