And you are essentially condoning criminal-like behavior by the NYSE to charge different people an exorbitant fee based on how they consume the data. There is no way that this fee would be deemed legal if it were taken to court.
Yes, the NYSE can never stop people from circumventing their arbitrary fee. Yours is just one example of a perfectly legal method to circumvent it.
Sorry, who is We? Why is it slow? Inputing keystrokes and moving the mouse?? What is computationally expensive here? I think the screen scraping would be the most expensive operation, but not the inputs. Besides, it still would be faster than most humans. Also the rest of API algorithms will have to pay some Ks monthly. If I needed to be the fastest algo I wouldn't be running it from my home PC. Day traders make very good money just looking at the screen and typing orders by hand. I just want to do same with my algorithm. I would be happy to access through a rate limited API priced similarly to display usage.If they impose absurd barriers, well, we'll look for ways around them. Sniff tcp ports, read process memory, etc...
in the past i traded at a prop where this was standard ops. would take 5 mins to run it against the qa server, all automated. one of the benefits is you got to bake in your 15c35, so there were significant speed advantages. not saying this is standard practice, but if a firm wants to be hardcore about qa/authentication, that's one way they do it.
it's going to hurt, i don't condone it. at the same time, it's not my job to play lawyer and pretend i have a legal opinion about this. i'm a trader, it's my job to understand this is real, approved by the sec, and i need to find a solution so i can stay in business.
Lol, seriously this is the ONLY outcome that could come of it. When there is a revolving door between the oversight bodies and the major participants it can ONLY result in those major participants ensuring to direct any regulatory changes to shore up their own positions. Thus creating a monopoly situation over time. The issue is not with the regulation but rather that we find ourselves in a position where there is no TRUE regulation by a INDEPENDENT regulatory body. The current situation is that the very participants that need to be regulated the most are the very participants that participate in directing the regulation that then gets applied to everyone. Of course they will ensure to look out for their own interests for as long as such a system is provided.
New update from OPRA-non-display policy. They raised their non-display fee to $2000/month but added an exception for those that qualify. September 30, 2016 Dear OPRA Data Recipient: The Options Price Reporting Authority is making two sets of changes in its Fee Schedule and its Policies with respect to Device-Based Fees. The first set of changes is with respect to the Professional Subscriber Device-Based Fee, the Enterprise Rate Professional Subscriber Fee that is available as an alternative to the Professional Subscriber Device-Based Fee, and OPRA’s Policies with respect to Device-Based Fees. Effective January 1, 2017, OPRA’s Professional Subscriber Device-based Fee will increase by $1.00/month to $30.50/month, and a corresponding change will be made in the Enterprise Rate. The remaining changes in this set of changes are to clarify, in the OPRA Fee Schedule and in the Policies, that a device would be subject to both the Professional Subscriber Device-Based Fee and OPRA’s Non-Display Use Fees if it is used both to display OPRA data and for Non-Display Use of OPRA data. The changes in the OPRA Fee Schedule included in this first set of changes are shown in Attachment 1 to this notice. This first set of changes will be effective January 1, 2017. The second set of changes is with regard to OPRA’s Non-Display Use Fees. The changes are primarily in the footnotes in the OPRA Fee Schedule relating to the Non-Display Use Fees. Two of the changes are relatively significant. First, OPRA is eliminating the use of the term “datafeed” in the footnotes in the OPRA Fee Schedule relating to the Non-Display Use Fees. Second, OPRA is amending one of the footnotes to specify that “Category 1” Non-Display Use Fees (“Category 1” Non-Display Use is Non-Display Use by a recipient of OPRA data on its own behalf) will not apply to a data recipient that “(i) has a single UserID that uses OPRA data for Non-Display Use and (ii) is not a broker-dealer and does not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during the calendar month (counting orders for this purpose in accordance with the rules of the OPRA Participant exchanges to which it submits orders during the month) for its own beneficial account(s).” The changes in the OPRA Fee Schedule included in this second set of changes are shown in Attachment 2 to this notice. This second set of changes will be effective November 1, 2016.