Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2604.13334

Computable Countermarkets and the Limits of Universal Trading

Karl Svozil
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We explain why no trading algorithm can guarantee profit in every market. For each deterministic program that always returns a finite-precision position, we construct a fixed, algorithmically generated price path on which every active position loses and inactivity earns nothing. This holds with positive, continually changing prices, costless trading, and unlimited computation time. Separate arguments limit learning market rules, certifying future events, and establishing randomness from finite data. Useful strategies may exploit market structure, information, or compensation for risk, while benchmark performance need not imply profit. Reversing and rearranging price histories within the assumed market class provide practical stress tests, distinguishing conditional success from universal guarantees.

Explore related subjects

q-fin.TR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Karl Svozil. 2026-09-21. Computable Countermarkets and the Limits of Universal Trading. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.13334

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The Marginal Effects of Ethereum Network MEV Transaction Re-Ordering

Two MEV builders now produce nearly 80\% of Ethereum blocks. Block builders have the ability to reorder transactions on the blockchain in a way that can be harmful to participants. We estimate participants would pay in the aggregate nearly \$7.2 million per month to guarantee that they remained in the first quartile of the block. Sandwich attacks, in which a transaction is front run, are frequent, averaging more than one every two blocks. Gas fees on these transactions pay for nearly 9.6\% of the MEV payments to the validator. Reforms such as gas fee priority or private transaction pools might be helpful.

q-fin.TR↗
arXiv2026

Adapting the Actor Model of Concurrency for High-Frequency Trading: Synchronous Message Delivery (fast_send) and a Tick-to-Book Latency Study

The actor model - state isolation, data-race freedom, deadlock resistance, and sequential single-message reasoning - has long been dismissed as unsuitable for high-frequency trading (HFT): actors seem to imply many threads, a mailbox per actor, and a heap-allocated message plus a context switch per interaction, overhead incompatible with a microsecond budget. This paper argues the dismissal is wrong for co-located actors, and supports it both analytically and with a deployed, measured implementation: kaspar-hft, an open-source C++20 framework. Four extensions adapt the model for HFT: fast_send, a synchronous delivery mechanism in which the sending thread runs the receiver's handler inline and returns the reply as a value; actor groups, which co-schedule actors on one thread behind a shared mailbox; per-actor selectable mailbox queues; and a memory pool. fast_send has receiver transparency: the handler cannot tell whether delivery was synchronous or asynchronous, or which thread runs it. A grouped synchronous chain runs on one thread, cutting scheduler context switches from O(N) to O(1), and a thread-local call-chain test catches cyclic invocation before any lock is taken. Microbenchmarks put the synchronous round trip at tens of nanoseconds. On a live CME market-data feed (ES, NQ, ZN futures), socket-to-book latency decomposes into a ~7 microsecond decode-and-book floor plus a per-message slope; the framework's own contribution is under 1% of the floor. The tail is set not by the actor machinery but by the market's non-Poisson, clustered arrival process, characterized in a companion paper. The shared-queue group also yields a production/simulation duality: the same actor code runs unchanged in live trading and deterministic backtest.

q-fin.TR↗
arXiv2026

Post-Rejection Follow-up Sampling: Measuring Outcomes of Rejected Decisions in Algorithmic DEX Trading

Filter-gated algorithmic trading systems on decentralised exchanges reject most candidate tokens they evaluate, yet the observed forward market trajectory of those rejected candidates is rarely measured on the same live venue that produced the rejection. This paper introduces Post-Rejection Follow-up Sampling (PRFS), an observational measurement methodology in which a separate tracking subsystem samples each rejected token's price and liquidity from the same live oracle path used by the rejecting scanner, at a scheduled cadence, from the moment of rejection out to a fixed analytic horizon. The methodology is defined through a formal specification of the observation window and the reason-attribution rule, a reference implementation (prfs v2.0.0) with executable coverage and reason-ledger tests, and a secondary cross-check implementation that re-derives every headline number through a distinct code path. The companion dataset contains 67,000 forward-observation rows across 2,997 rejection events collected on a single Solana automated-market-maker sub-venue during a launch-dynamics window of 8.63 calendar days across 457 unique mints. Under the primary reason-aware three-field event key, 1,455 events (48.55 percent) receive a matched forward observation; under the reason-agnostic two-field diagnostic key, 1,641 events (54.75 percent) match. Mint-level coverage is 100 percent. The 253-row reason-conflict ledger and 8,593 unaligned outcome rows are disclosed, and coverage is shown to be filter-associated (chi-square(6) = 401.29) and source-associated (z = 14.78). No causal or counterfactual claim of a hypothetical acceptance outcome is made; the reported estimand is the observed post-rejection forward return.

q-fin.TR↗