Seems like a bit of a false dichotomy- other alternatives are regulatory requirements or taxes that force or allow the api to be provisioned

▲

inigyou 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You can force markets to make an open API funded by participants, but you can't make it fully open (open API and open participation) if you don't want tax funding because then there's no funding source left. Maybe you decide a fully open market is worth being tax funded, though it's still mostly going to benefit very rich people.

▲

dv_dt 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why is "no tax funding" a hard requirement? I would think the lowest cost to get that market information publicly shared and forthcoming (and thus increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the market), would be for a government dept to operate the frontend distribution, but require regulatory submissions of transaction data within reasonable latency windows. It's just a modern form of say US SEC document submissions and EDGAR to distribute.

	▲	inigyou 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's because why should taxes fund things that benefit rich people? It's not far off from taxes funding the caviar at Davos.

▲

Closi an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't see why you can't do that?

There's plenty of things that cost money that legislation forces companies to do anyway, regardless of if there is a 'funding source' or not.

Although this particular one is from the FCA so presumably is taxpayer funded anyway.

	▲	inigyou 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Well if you mandate they spend money and also mandate they don't get money, they'll shut down.