You are ignoring the context of the article in order to push an ideological point.<p>Levine is explaining how you can get a 95+% cancellation rate simply by running the most brain-dead simple possible market maker strategy: because you&#x27;re required to post orders at multiple exchanges, and because every price change involves order cancellations (potentially <i>lots</i> of order cancellations, even on a single exchange, because of pairs trading and price ladders), and because adjusting prices on exchanges in near-real-time is the basic job of a market maker, virtually anyone running an electronic market maker is going to have a huge cancellation rate.<p>Levine brings this up to illustrate the silliness of proposals to regulate HFT by targeting entities with huge cancellation rates.<p>Comes now &#x27;cdroconnor. You&#x27;re playing a semantic game. You&#x27;re defining &quot;HFT&quot; as &quot;bad HFT&quot;, and everything else as simple &quot;electronic trading&quot;. <i>FINE</i>. Nobody disagrees with you, except on the very boring point of what labels to attach to things.<p>But your argument here doesn&#x27;t make any sense for the thread, because the good simple electronic trading you&#x27;re condoning is <i>also targeted by the cancellation regulation</i> Clinton proposed. Which is the whole point of the article.