Hi @NEXBTCNEX this is a usual issue with market orders in all markets and depends on time and size. I saw on the thread some examples of markets in Binance, this week I saw this print bellow from Coinbase (42000 BTC for $0.18 each).
The best way to buy and sell any asset is issuing a limit order, if you want it with urgency you can always declare a maximum slippage, what this means in practice:
Let’s say ETH is $170 and I will only tolerate up to $168
I would than place a limit order selling at $168.
You can place limit orders bellow the current market price, it will than walk the book just like a market order up to the limit price, so you would sell from $170 up to $168 and than seat in the book with the remainder. Other market players would than see the imbalance ($2 from market) and redirect orders to take your position. This is for example in a simplified form how the basic exchange worked, it would place orders 0.75% (called 75 base points) away from the microprice (the price in the middle of the buy and sell weighted by the size of each).
I will see if we can add some kind of slippage control to market orders so this doesn’t happen in Nash.
I understand, I just trusted the big sell orders that were displayed at the time, I didn’t think they could be fake or bot, I believed the liquidity of almost 100 ETH was real.
The liquidity is real and there isn’t fake orders - the orders must be sitting in the book when your order is placed. That is exactly what a limit order guarantee, that you order will wait at that price level.
I just want you to understand that I wanted to operate in Nash, that’s why I brought the USDC, what happened is frustrating and sad, at another time I could lose that amount of money, today I am devastated, that’s why I was in USDC and not in another currency, it was a reservation.
I wish you much success, thank you for your responses.
I understand the frustration, it seems the community is ready to help you - I would just let then help, that is how the community gets stronger.
My explanation was needed mainly because lots of replies imply that one must use a market order for immediate execution and that is wrong. One can just issue a taker limit order like I mentioned in my example above. I don’t want to make this more complex but if you really don’t want anything seating in the books there is the options of time in force (TIF) to fulfill that.
Some simplified trading apps like Robinhood implement market orders using limit orders with immediate or cancel TIF and 50bps gain. That is an alternative for user protection we might explore, but that is already possible using the limit order type (since we offer TIF selection), so we decided to offer real market orders.
I just sent you 1 NEO to start helping you. Hoping that with me, 100 other people can make the same donation and help you. Hoping to also give you a smile.
Thank you, it really is a day full of emotions, ups and downs, but seeing this is something incredible, thank you very much. I want you to receive 100 times what you give.
