|
Post by MoneyThing on Feb 12, 2017 18:06:06 GMT
Evening,
I appreciate your frustrations and will certainly look into it.
I have had a cursory look at the transaction data and there does seem to be some activity today which is beyond quick-finger abilities.
I will have a further look tomorrow and if I suspect anything untoward I will speak to the user(s) to give them an initial warning and if they then go on to repeat we will take steps.
Kind regards,
Ed
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Feb 13, 2017 12:54:47 GMT
Afternoon,
I have been discussing this at length this morning with The Shuang and we are going to implement velocity checks and lock-outs on the system.
In summary, the system will monitor in real-time and compare bidding time to the previous one every time a bid is placed.
If a bid is attempted to be placed within 'X' seconds of the previous bid then an error message will pop up with something like 'high velocity bidding blocked'.
Just finishing some other development work at the moment but should have this implemented by the end of this week.
We will also implement a similar system to cater for bids placed at launch of a new loan (i.e. 'Y' seconds after 4pm on the PM), and also time difference between sale & purchase on the SM (i.e. 'Z' seconds between).
Once launched, we may need a little time to optimise what X, Y & Z is set to to get it right but this should solve some of these problems.
Kind regards,
Ed
IN EDIT: We will also maintain a log of the ones that get blocked.
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Feb 13, 2017 13:14:56 GMT
Afternoon, I have been discussing this at length this morning with The Shuang and we are going to implement velocity checks and lock-outs on the system. In summary, the system will monitor in real-time and compare bidding time to the previous one every time a bid is placed. If a bid is attempted to be placed within 'X' seconds of the previous bid then an error message will pop up with something like 'high velocity bidding blocked'. Just finishing some other development work at the moment but should have this implemented by the end of this week. We will also implement a similar system to cater for bids placed at launch of a new loan (i.e. 'Y' seconds after 4pm on the PM), and also time difference between sale & purchase on the SM (i.e. 'Z' seconds between). Once launched, we may need a little time to optimise what X, Y & Z is set to to get it right but this should solve some of these problems. Kind regards, Ed IN EDIT: We will also maintain a log of the ones that get blocked. I can see that X will help, but Y and Z seem just the kind of thing that a bot would excel at getting right and humans will occasionally hit by being too fast. causing some irritation. Acknowledged. However, we will look to set the limits to ensure non-bot users are not captured. Of course the bot users can 'learn' what X, Y & Z are and adjust their scripts accordingly, however we will still be maintaining a log to identify those users and manually intervene to block them. We are also seeking legal advice to adjust our Ts&Cs so that we can include penalties for these types of breaches. I would mention that this use of scripts have been identified from a few users who have recently joined. Regards, Ed.
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Feb 13, 2017 14:53:45 GMT
I can see that X will help, but Y and Z seem just the kind of thing that a bot would excel at getting right and humans will occasionally hit by being too fast. causing some irritation. Y shouldn't be an issue with new loans (assuming the bid limits are sensible), it's really just renewals where there's very little to go around. With Z, a "normal" lender may hit lucky occasionally and buy a loan-part within a second or two of it appearing, but they're unlikely to be able to do it regularly unless they know in advance that a part is about to be listed (ie. "husband and wife" accounts selling and re-buying parts between themselves). That's the thing that I suspect could cause some complaints... Thanks - I had forgotten about that more legitimate scenario.
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Feb 13, 2017 15:06:54 GMT
Afternoon, I have been discussing this at length this morning with The Shuang and we are going to implement velocity checks and lock-outs on the system. In summary, the system will monitor in real-time and compare bidding time to the previous one every time a bid is placed. If a bid is attempted to be placed within 'X' seconds of the previous bid then an error message will pop up with something like 'high velocity bidding blocked'. Just finishing some other development work at the moment but should have this implemented by the end of this week. We will also implement a similar system to cater for bids placed at launch of a new loan (i.e. 'Y' seconds after 4pm on the PM), and also time difference between sale & purchase on the SM (i.e. 'Z' seconds between). Once launched, we may need a little time to optimise what X, Y & Z is set to to get it right but this should solve some of these problems. Kind regards, Ed IN EDIT: We will also maintain a log of the ones that get blocked. I think MT should still block/ban users using scripts? As in effect you are saying it's OK to use scripts as long as the script bids at x,y and z +1 second. Yes, the advantage is reduced but still allows an advantage over someone bidding manually and as ali pointed out the solution will inconvenience genuine manual bidders and allow script bidders to just add a second and avoid warnings but still have the advantage. MT's T&C state it's not allowed so action should be taken when breached. In general I'm surprised that the FCA allows this situation to go on in P2P, it seems fundamentally at odds with the whole notion of P2P. Did these issues even come up with your meetings with the FCA? As mentioned, as well as implementing the velocity checks & lock-outs we will still be maintaining a log to identify those using scripts and manually intervene. Whilst our Ts&Cs state it is not allowed, they do not currently go on to detail the consequences of such a breach which is something we are looking into. In terms of your other point, I would suggest that this kind of activity is at odds with more of the 'spirit' of P2P, rather than the regulation of. Certainly not a topic that has come up during our conversations. Regards, Ed.
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Feb 13, 2017 19:23:45 GMT
You've just got to look to the computer games industry to find that defeating bots isn't going to happen, they've been fighting them for years with whole buildings full of developers. So why not supply the bots? That way everyone will be on a level playing field. Indeed. And you have to look no further than AC's implementation of pre-orders with availability shared amongst as many such orders as possible to see a successful solution to investor demand outstripping loan supply. There is no need on AC for bots or FFF or captcha or being forced to bid at exactly 16:00:00 or any of the other ridiculous contortions p2p sites force their investors to resort to to get a slice of an investment opportunity. Personally I think too many people are going to get unfairly accused of operating a bot by what moneything are proposing, as firing off multiple manual buy orders after 4pm is not difficult and can be done at c. 1 sec frequency or less (as GSV3MIaC explained above). Do moneything really want the negative publicity in the national media from disgruntled investors who have their accounts closed or restricted in some way after being accused of operating a bot ?As well as the husband/wife account swap transactions, depending on the implementation of the IFISA it is likely that there will be people wanting to attempt IFISA / main account swap transactions. (For clarity I wasn't involved in yesterday's batch of renewals as I don't have the confidence in the valuations of such art to participate, having been badly burnt on FS with similiar.) Evening, You may well be proved right, however if you don't mind allowing us a little grace whilst we try implementing this short term measure to see it's effect first. Having identified two potential bot users at the weekend from two very recently opened accounts, we are looking to implement something that will have an effect within a week. There are certainly other solutions we can try if this does not work and certainly ACs system is very good, however this is substantially more work and will take longer to implement. I am sure lenders recognise that we will always try to implement systems that are fair & equitable. We are trying one approach to a very recent issue and if this does not work we will try something else. I only ask politely that you bare bear with us before suggesting that we will go down in a ball of flames in the media before we have even tried anything. Kind regards, Ed
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Feb 13, 2017 20:07:08 GMT
... I am sure lenders recognise that we will always try to implement systems that are fair & equitable .... I note your "fair and equitable" seems to only apply to those people who happen to have nothing to do at 4pm each day. What about the rest of the lending population? Right now, with an imbalance between lenders and borrowers, you can exist without such a system but that will not always be the case. If MT want to grow to a material size then limiting your lending base to only those who can participate at 4pm seems illogical. An order management system is clearly the correct solution. Moreover, it doesn't need to be the overly complex system that AC decided to deploy. Acknowledged and I believe we have already started discussions on this particular topic. As someone who I greatly admire (as do many others), on this forum for their thoughtful posts, I would be very appreciative if you might be willing to assist with the design of the system?
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Feb 19, 2017 16:21:06 GMT
Afternoon,
I have just gone through the 396 bids placed by 16:01:04 and there is nothing to suggest any bot-like behaviour this afternoon. Thank you.
Kind regards,
Ed
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Feb 20, 2017 10:19:23 GMT
Afternoon, I have just gone through the 396 bids placed by 16:01:04 and there is nothing to suggest any bot-like behaviour this afternoon. Thank you. Kind regards, Ed Thanks. If it's possible, does the above still look intuitively ok when crossed against total number of people logged-in? Given the speed of auto-logout, it's unlikely anyone was online unless bidding. Yes - I was monitoring the number of users logged in and it roughly correlated with the transaction data. Regards, Ed.
|
|