SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,871
Likes: 7,915
|
Post by SteveT on Feb 13, 2017 13:31:27 GMT
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'. 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. 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...
|
|
gt94sss2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 281
Likes: 137
|
Post by gt94sss2 on Feb 13, 2017 13:32:09 GMT
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. Of course, the 'obvious' penalty would be asking/telling those few users to just 'unjoin' the platform (and/or compulsory sell their holdings)
|
|
keystone
Member of DD Central
Posts: 713
Likes: 575
|
Post by keystone on Feb 13, 2017 13:43:42 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?
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on Feb 13, 2017 13:46:07 GMT
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. Of course, the 'obvious' penalty would be asking/telling those few users to just 'unjoin' the platform (and/or compulsory sell their holdings) Perhaps a tad excessive! I'd be looking at refusing to take any new money from them for a period (a month maybe). Edit: Thinking about it, that isn't quite enough to prevent somebody gaming the system. Perhaps there is no alternative than to refuse to allow new loan parts to be purchased for a period.
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on Feb 13, 2017 13:54:17 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... I guess it depends on just how small Ed is thinking of. I frequently get Y values below 5s (without using any bots, I hasten to add). I doubt that I'm the fastest user out there given the speed of my Internet connection.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,739
Likes: 3,134
|
Post by jonno on Feb 13, 2017 15:14:40 GMT
Thanks and well done Ed. It might not be the 100% solution at the outset but I'm sure between you and The Shuang, you'll refine it over time.
OMG I've just realised......................... I'm going to have to slow my fingers down in case I get accused of being a bot
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Feb 13, 2017 18:22:16 GMT
/Mod hat off
I also applaud the quick action by Ed et al .. but ..
To beat the rush on the PM you don't actually need to be a bot .. given that you know that the PM is open for bidding at 16:00:01, all you need to do is figure out what the HTTP submission (or IE page URL, or whatever) is for 'Buy £x of loan z', and fire that in manually (you can program a keyboard shortcut) right on the dot. You can even have a bunch of them queued and ready to go, machine gun fashion (as at least one user can be seen to have done). Human action - yep, press 8 keys as fast as possible. Greasemonkey or .js are other options.
You DO need a bot if you want to watch the SM 24/7 and leap on new offerings within milliseconds (since you don't know what you are going to want to buy, and when) but the preplanned release of a known loan number at a known time is shooting fish in barrels for a tooled up human .. bot not required.
If you really want to level the playing field then we get to organise some sort of queuing or allocation system for the SM parts which pop up, which is going to make 'sell to partner' unworkable (which I could live with, but some maybe can't). Having bought something, you are at the back of the queue, and have to wait for your number to come up again (queuing) or you can't buy more than £x in one bid (allocation). Saying 'when a part is listed nobody can buy it for 11 seconds' is manna from heaven for a bot, which can detect the part arriving to the nearest few ms, and bid exactly at the right time (my kitchen timer lacks the required accuracy).
|
|
DiQ
Member of DD Central
Posts: 61
Likes: 48
|
Post by DiQ on Feb 13, 2017 18:35:08 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.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Feb 13, 2017 18:47:45 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 or personal/limited company 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.)
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Feb 13, 2017 19:03:38 GMT
So someone running 3 accounts get pre-funded 3 times as much as me without any effort. Seems fair. I like MT as it is and don't like SS. I don't like SS either, but it's not because of prefunding. As far as I'm aware, MT operates a one account per individual policy. Operating a financial account in a false name is fraud. MT will be taking steps to verify the identity of their customers as is their regulatory requirement, so it seems unlikely that anyone owns more than one account.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Feb 13, 2017 19:06:08 GMT
So someone running 3 accounts get pre-funded 3 times as much as me without any effort. Seems fair. I like MT as it is and don't like SS. I don't like SS either, but it's not because of prefunding. As far as I'm aware, MT operates a one account per individual policy. Operating a financial account in a false name is fraud. MT will be taking steps to verify the identity of their customers as is their regulatory requirement, so it seems unlikely that anyone owns more than one account. I think you've slightly missed the point ... some households will be operating 3 or even 4 accounts ... his personal account, her personal account, their limited company (or possibly his and her limited companies).
|
|
robski
Member of DD Central
Posts: 772
Likes: 462
|
Post by robski on Feb 13, 2017 19:06:55 GMT
I am not convinced that many if any bots operate on the SM personally
I quite regularly pick up bits n bobs there, also I have seen a few times where someone is obviously dumping £000s and they take sometimes 15 mins to clear To me this behaviour doesn't stack with there being a load of bots hovering up every scrap in milliseconds Its more likely the people complaining of SM bots are just checking occasionally when its likely to be busy and hence it could be say 1 vs 50 to pick up the sale
In order to buy on the SM you need to refresh so one option would be maybe to, if its possible, turn off auto refresh and just allow the site to send refreshes say every 30 seconds to those logged into the loans page
|
|
|
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
|
|