MQL4 vs MQL5 - page 7
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
But it is interesting what happens - let us assume that brokerage companies have MT4 and MT5 servers which should be shorted to each other before connecting to the liquidity provider. Then there is no advantage for brokerage companies with such a pair, because the parameters of the worst server determine everything.
From the moment the request came to where it goes in mt5 to the moment it went to the "liquidity provider". I'm not interested in network delays, I'm interested in server delays and processing speed.
microseconds (less than a millisecond). All you have to do is enter the object into the database and drop the application on the Provider.
If you are trying to attach to this notion the model of dealing with DCs that don't put requests on the market, then understand that this has nothing to do with the work of the platform as such. It is within the business model and on the conscience of the brokerage company itself.
The platform itself is absolutely honest and transparent for a trader.
And who are you? Who are the authors?
---------------------
Quote from one broker
There are two typical business models that brokerage companies operate under:
- Straight Through Processing (STP).
In this model, the brokerage is an intermediary between the client and the liquidity provider. In the STP model client orders are automatically passed on to the liquidity provider, for which the broker receives a commission and a portion of the spread. Here the broker is interested in increasing the volume of trades because his profit is directly related to the number of trades made by clients. There is no conflict of interest between the STP broker and the client.
- Closed Dealing Center (DC)
In this model client buys and sells through the broker. Here the broker is actually the forex-dealer, acting as a counterparty (second party) for the client when making a deal. If the client wins, the broker loses his profit and vice versa. Most newbies starting Forex trading are inexperienced and have a 95% chance of losing their funds. This model is similar to a casino and is designed to cause most clients to lose their deposits. There is a bias between broker and clients in this model.
---------------------
So when we talk about provider, we mean the first model.
When we talk about playing against the client, we mean the second model
Almost all brokers (including the one mentioned above) work according to a combined scheme.
For small orders (up to 0.1 lot) or steadily losing clients, they work using the second model.
For orders over 0.1 lot or profitable ones - by the first one.
Nobody is trying to reach into their pockets, neither for themselves, nor for you. Each party takes its own risks.
But it does not depend on the platform. Stock exchanges and Dukascopy, esignal, etc. others who don't use MT also work on such models.
If you remember the docu-film "wars of Wallstreet", there in the first episode successfully demonstrated the work of the New York exchange, which in fact by law is obliged to work under the second scheme when there is no liquidity in the market. i.e. acts as a counterparty to customer orders.
microseconds (less than a millisecond). All you have to do is to enter an object into the database and drop an order to the Provider.
Is that what you think or have there already been real measurements? By the way, there's actually still a problem there, moments of mass bids, how it works there. It used to be about scalability etc. - I wonder how that's working out.
In simple terms, a liquidity provider is a bank, it is an exchange, i.e. it is an entity that will satisfy the liquidity consumer's bid to buy/sell an asset.
If you are trying to attach to this notion the operation model of DCs that don't drop orders to the market, then understand this has nothing to do with the operation of the platform as such. It is within the business model and on the conscience of the brokerage company itself.
The platform itself is absolutely honest and transparent for a trader.
What a bank does and what an exchange does are different things. You have very dashingly lumped them into the same category, while they are different. To the point that I personally would not go to the bank, but I will go to the exchange.
I have to repeat myself - I do not care about what is in the conscience of brokerage companies, the question is where and how bids are fulfilled. And I do not need quotes from Wikipedia.
advanced terminal user.
Well, then your opinion doesn't count.
So when we talk about provider, we mean the first model.
When we talk about playing against the client, we mean the second model
Almost all brokers (including the one mentioned above) work according to a combined scheme.
For small orders (up to 0.1 lot) or steadily losing clients, they work using the second model.
For orders over 0.1 lot or profitable ones - by the first one.
Nobody is trying to reach into their pockets, neither you nor yourself. Each party takes its own risks.
But it does not depend on the platform. This is the model used by exchanges, Dukascopy, esignal, etc. and others who do not use MTs.
If you remember the docfilm "wars of Wallstreet", there in the first episode aptly shows the operation of the New York Stock Exchange, which in fact is legally obliged to operate under the second scheme when there is no liquidity in the market. That is, it acts as a counterparty to client bids.
We are talking about the work of a so-called specialist on the NYSE. To squeeze his work into the "second scheme" (comparing them to the DTs) is a big distortion, that's not how it works there.
Well then your opinion doesn't count.
Thank you for the lecture, but needless to say.Well, my mission was to show you that the platform is not evil with underwater reefs towards the trader, and it works cleanly.
I hope I have accomplished my mission.
Man, your crystal ball is broken, the diagnoses on the internet are wrong.
Why are you giving me explanations about storing and transferring applications, it's already known. I wondered what the delays are at this stage.
The second point, who can act as a "liquidity provider"?
If the "liquidity provider" is a separate unit in the mt5 server, it is OK, I just need to know it to plan the degree of my interest in the platform.
If the "liquidity provider" is an old deathesch server on mt4 - an understandable situation.
If the "liquidity provider" is the server of bank XYZ24, which is engaged in currency exchange operations - also an understandable thing.
If the "liquidity provider" is an exchange server, that's the interesting thing. But assurances that "so-and-so can work on the exchange", from outsiders to the exchange, are not interesting. Interesting to see that it really works there. ZS. zybot not offer.
And as a cautious person, I want proof. Or at least an understanding of who is standing against me on the other side of the monitor. If they are real bids from other traders - fine. If it is market makers - that's fine. If it is a dealing center server that withdraws something in aggregate - sorry, there is a conflict of interest, I personally am not interested.
If you understand a simple thing, quotes, even in the form of a cup, you can easily and coercively push almost everywhere, proudly calling it the data from the stock exchange. The question is who and where puts the bids together.