At this point it is safe to say that the world has far greater issues than simple trade scalping and a broken market structure courtesy of the few robotic algorithms that still trade, even compared to three years ago. Back than it was far less obvious that the global ponzi was on the edge every day, and that only coordinated efforts such as today's one-two punch by Jamie Dimon and his subordinates at the FRBNY could mask the fact that the stress test was never actually needed, as any time banks suffer a 20% drop the Fed would simply proceed to the New QE (pass go, and give the $200 direct to the banks). And yet, years after the flash crash, pervasive central planning notwithstanding, the High Freaks are still around, subpennying, stub quoting, channel stuffing and otherwise making a total mockery of the retail investor (at least the one who is dumb enough to put in a limit order and not split up a big order into many tiny ones). Which is simply stunning - by now, even if reading just a fraction of the hundreds of posts [3]on the topic on this site alone of which this one may be the most encompassing [8], one would think that everyone, and that even includes the SEC, would be well aware of the borderline criminal, and certainly liquidity destroying (although volume spiking via churn), product that is High Frequency Trading. Apparently not.
It turns out that The Economist is actually having a debate, together with an unscientific poll (if it was "scientific" every vote would have been frontrun by some deranged subpenny algo) on the question of whether "High Frequency Trading contributes to the overall liquidity of markets." There even are formal representatives defending either side. Anyway, we urge readers, not like it will make a difference, to go here [9]and be heard on the matter. Comments and votes can be cast here [10].
Remember: if the robots are losing, they will simply flash crash this poll into oblivion and all shall be well. In other words, this is another genuinely democratic vote.
[9]