'Pre-settle' function - observation

Stacks address:
{STZCFP3486BF968TPQ3H6DBRK70YKKSAW39CVBTT} testnet

Description:

I’m not sure if the pre-settle function actually works.
I have more than 10000 xUSD from xBTC sale transactions in ‘Settling’ status.
Despite this, when entering an order to buy xBTC for 5500 xUSD, the message ‘Insufficient Balance’ appears.
I will do some more tests.

Browser: Google Chrome (version): 106.0.5249.119

Screenshot:

Discord ID:
mike_bear_1.btc#8434

Telegram ID:
@mike_bear_1

2 Likes

Hi @mike_bear_1 , thank you for testing it out!
Unfortunately, we could not reproduce what you saw. Between selling BTC and placing the buy order, did you refresh your page? It could be a delay in our front-end to read the state (we are working on websocket for a faster refresh).

1 Like

Hi @fiftyeightandeight
And thanks for your reply :+1:
I admit that I didn’t refresh the page while testing this feature.
This will be a clue for me the next time I try it.
If I encounter this problem again, I will try to record the individual steps of the test with the help of Screenpresso :+1:

It looks like the ‘Pre-settle’ function has started to work :+1:
But it wants to test it a little longer :pray:
By the way, I noticed that now almost every accepted order is divided into two or more parts.
This may be a problem for some users. Some previously reported that they find it difficult to count them.
Therefore, I think it is worth adding some user-friendly solution here.
What quickly comes to my mind is the ability to export all user transactions to a csv file :thinking:

Hi @fiftyeightandeight

I repeated the tests today.
It seems that the Pre-settle function works and runs very smoothly :+1:
Well done! Thanks a lot :slightly_smiling_face:

I tested to on the xBTC/xUSD pair. Both for ‘Limit Price’ and ‘Market Price’.
In the case of ‘Limit Price’, I didn’t always hit the price so that the order was immediately taken for execution.

The second option, ‘Market Price’, works better here.
But here again I noticed problems with the order filling.
I am attaching screenshots of ‘Trade History’ vs. ‘Matched Orders’.
Here we need efficiency around 100% :thinking:

Screenshots:

1 Like

Hi @mike_bear_1 thank you for testing again and very glad to hear the experience is better this time!
Yes, we are working on the efficacy of Market Order, tinkering with the parameters to see what works best, and also looking to improve our market making bots so that the order book depth is more stable. We will be releasing a new version of market making bots next week, so I hope by then the second issue (the order book depth stability) is addressed.

Btw, did I tell you that we are building an interesting product around the market making bots that will connect the Orderbook with our existing AMMs, thereby allowing AMM LPs to contribute liquidity to Orderbook and benefit from the Orderbook trading volume (similar to “vAMMs” some other order book protocols have, but providing a clear limit order experience)?

1 Like

Hi @fiftyeightandeight

I am happy to be of help. At the same time, I am learning these solutions and gaining experience as a tester. :+1:

Although I must admit that I feel such tester anxiety. Because it is not quite possible to test the performance of the Pre-settle function when only partially or it happens that the order is not filled in its entirety.
But I keep my fingers crossed :crossed_fingers: for the implementation of the new ‘Market Price’ solution.

I would also be grateful if I could test it. So please let me know if it is already implemented.

Thanks also for the super news about building around more liquidity. :clap:
I absolutely support and also keep my fingers crossed :crossed_fingers:
Liquidity is the heart of Odrerbook, I think :thinking:

Thanks again for this message and I look forward to further good news :face_with_monocle: :slight_smile:

Settling just threw me for a loop also, it does take a while - led me to believe it had already succeeded with the first notice, had no idea each step would display a progress indication. Seems to be moving along nicely now!

Hi @mike_bear_1 @DeeList.btc , we rolled out the improved market making bots at the last reset so that the order book depth is now more stable.
The market order efficacy should be better now (assuming you don’t outspend our market making bot!), so please give it a try and let me know what you think.

Also, while you are testing, for now, please ensure you refresh (Ctrl+R) your page after every time you place an order, so that you ensure the front-end fetches the latest balance from the back-end.
We are implementing a web socket solution to address this data fetch / latency issue (so the front-end automatically/immediately refreshes and you don’t have to refresh manually), so will let you know when that’s out.

Thank you.

3 Likes

Hi Chan @fiftyeightandeight :handshake:
Thanks for writing :+1:

I think you are doing really amazing things :saluting_face:
And the ‘Pre-Settle Trading’ feature is a real milestone for Orderbook :rocket:

I wish I could be as good at placing orders as your bots are getting better and better. But I will keep trying :wink: I think @DeeList.btc and @werner.btc will also try :wink:

As for the ‘Pre-Settle Trading’ working itself, I didn’t need to refresh the page :+1:
It just worked.
Just good job and let’s keep it that way :+1:

Thank you! :slight_smile:

1 Like

Thank you @fiftyeightandeight

Much respect for all of the hardwork and efforts by everyone!
I’m happy to assist and help our wonderful community create an incredible future :star_struck:

1 Like

Hi @mike_bear_1 @DeeList.btc @werner.btc , the latest public testnet incorporates websocket I spoke of above. You should find the overall trading experience smoother, so please do let us know for any questions/suggestions/bugs!

2 Likes

Hi Chan @fiftyeightandeight :handshake:
thanks for writing.
So we’ll do the retests and we’ll be sure to let you know.
Greetings,
mike

Hi @fiftyeightandeight again,

As for my observations after testing the ‘Pre-Settle Tarding’ function, I will divide them into two groups.

The first concerns ‘Limit Price’ orders (screenshot 1). And here I actually have no reservations. As in the earlier tests, this function works smoothly, without the need to refresh the page.

Screenshot_1

The second group of orders are those of the ‘Market Price’ types (screenshot 2).

Screenshot_2

In this case there was no need to refresh the page in order to observe the operation of ‘Pre-Settle Tarding’, too. However, there is still some problem in filling these orders. Most of them were not fully filled. Some were not filled at all.
In addition, after placing several these orders, I noticed that they do not show up in either 'Order History or ‘Trade History’.
And in this case it was necessary to refresh the page. After this action, subsequent orders already appeared, without having to refresh again.

An additional impediment to smooth tading is the operation of the slider, which is located under the ‘Amount’ window. Moving it to the end most often ends with a message: ‘Insufficient balance’, because its range exceeds 100% (screenshot 3).

Screenshot_3

102.75%amount_and_insufficient_balance

I remember reporting this in the first phase of Alex Orderbook testing :slight_smile:

Also, it would be a great convenience for the user to be able to export ‘Trade History’. This is due to the fact that in the course of execution, an order is often split into several(dozen) parts (Screenshoot 4). With the ability to export these data, it would be easier to count / add up.

Screenshoot_4

I remember reporting this as well, and I hope it will appear in the mainnet version of STX-Dex :slight_smile:

And one more thing I noticed in ‘Trade History’. Well, there is no distinction there between ‘Limit’ / ‘Market’ type orders. They are all described as ‘Limit / Sell’ or ‘Limit / Buy’.
In the ‘Order History’ tab this distinction is there.

I wrote a little bit about it… Please forgive me Chan :pray:
But I hope this information will be helpful :slight_smile:

Greetings,
mike

p.s. Google Chrome browser (ver): 107.0.5304.88

1 Like

Hi @mike_bear_1 , thank you very much for your quality (as always) feedbacks. We truly appreciate it.

So in summary, our action points are:

(1) Market Order: continue improving the execution efficacy,
(2) Order display: address latency in display especially when placing several orders in rapid succession,
(3) Slider: fix exceeding 100%,
(4) Export Trade History,
(5) Proper categorisation of Limit and Market Order under Trade History

We will get onto these. Thank you.

1 Like

Thanks @fiftyeightandeight for writing and thanks for being open to suggestions from the community, including mine.

But if I can still ask for a cherry on the Orderbook cake, please:

Many thanks Chan and greetings,
mike

2 Likes

Hi @mike_bear_1 I confirmed with our product team that this feature would be incorporated in the next release. Thank you!

3 Likes

Hi @Fiftyeightandeight,

great, nice to read this. And thank you Chan for your positive response.

Kindly regards,
mike

1 Like

Hi @fiftyeightandeight,

below is a brief summary of my ‘Pre-settle Trading’ tests today for Market Price orders (xBTC/xUSD pair).
I focused on the % fill of these orders.
And I present the results here:

Pre-settle trading / Market Price / filling

Details
Order No. % fill Order No. % fill Order No. % fill
1. 72 11. 54 21. 100
2. 100 12. 100 22. 61
3. 54 13. 54 23. 80
4. 20 14. 0 24. 100
5. 100 15. 0 25. 48
6. 0 16. 100 26. 100
7. 34 17. 52 27. 44
8. 100 18. 100 28. 31
9. 42 19. 69 29. 100
10. 100 20. 28 30. 49

Summary % fill

Summary
% fill no. of orders % of the total
0% 3 10,00%
below 50% 8 26,67%
above 50% 8 26,67%
100% 11 36,67%
Total: 30 100,00%

And here are some more screenshots of the history of these 30 orders:

Details

I also noticed a small but equally beneficial change for the ‘Hide Other Markets’ option The green switch looks very nice :white_check_mark:

Details

Thanks for including a breakdown of the history into smaller screens, with 10 orders in each :+1:

Well done Chan, as always :+1:
Many thanks :slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes