They&#x27;re saying that low latency &#x2F; lack of fundamentals (versus &#x27;market events&#x27;) marks HFT.<p>Unfortunately, at the end of the day, even if you are only about &#x27;fundamentals&#x27; (whatever that means) you&#x27;re obviously going to want to trade FIRST on those fundamentals .. right?  Cause whoever does is going to win the day.  Ok, so low latency is necessary for normal electronic trading.<p>Ok, now market events versus fundamentals.   Seriously? At what point are &#x27;market events&#x27; not fundamentals?   The definition is all arbitrary.  If there is a change in some correlating index, isn&#x27;t that a &#x27;market event&#x27;?  But isn&#x27;t it also rather fundamental (say, that correlating index is interest rates futures)?   At what point does that change in the correlating index no long qualify as a &#x27;fundamental event&#x27;?   When Nanex says it doesn&#x27;t?<p>Nanex simply wants to have its cake and doesn&#x27;t want to be marked as &quot;HFT&quot;.   All electronic trading, at its heart, is going to be HFT at some point.  The only way to keep that from happening is just come up with really arbitrary definitions marking the line you can&#x27;t cross.  Likely those definitions will be used to help whoever is paying Hillary Clinton&#x2F;Bush&#x2F;Trump&#x2F;etc the most money.<p>Let&#x27;s not bother with these shenanigans just put a transactional tax on everything and be done with it.  Let&#x27;s stop spending all our time and our brain power creating software to do trading and start getting back to actually researching &#x2F;innovating &#x2F; building things.