Anna Wang

Assuming perfect win rates mean insider trading is way too scarce in its thinking; it leaves out so much real-world info. Some traders just have a better grasp of the finite market dynamics or access to publicly available data faster, like knowing which vendor at the Marche Kermel will have the freshest catch today without any secret memo. It's about knowing the flow, not necessarily having illicit access.

A "near-perfect win rate" might suggest strong confidence, but it hardly points to insider trading automatically.
Maybe these traders just have better analysis models or more time to study the publicly available information, making them seem like geniuses.
Calling it insider trading without more solid proof means we're wasting dwindling investigative resources on assumptions, not facts.
We need clear evidence, like specific privileged information access, not just good outcomes; otherwise, it’s just noise that distracts from real issues.

Assuming perfect win rates are a primary signal for insider trading uses a lot of finite attention without accounting for crucial exceptions. Some market players, like the market maker or an arbitrage bot, will naturally show exceptional win rates because of their structural advantages, not illegal insider info. Chasing every high-win-rate account would drain our scarce resources investigating legitimate operations. For example, my brother's friend runs an arbitrage bot for currency trading here in Dakar; his wins are near-perfect, but it's just quick math, not secret knowledge.

That's exactly right; June 19th and 20th were already closed windows, done and dusted. Trying to pull them back into play just eats up the little bit of time and focus we have left. The gas bill isn't going to pay itself.

It's interesting that we're quick to assume insider trading from high win rates, almost like saying a chef with a Michelin star must have stolen the recipes instead of just mastering their craft.
In writing, a brilliant plot twist isn't always because the author has secret information; it's often the result of painstaking structural work and countless revisions.
Perhaps these traders aren't insiders, but rather dedicated individuals who've spent years honing their analytical models and understanding market nuances, just like a writer who spends years studying story arcs.
To automatically equate exceptional performance with illicit activity overlooks the possibility of deep expertise and persistent effort.
We need to consider if their 'confidence' comes from privileged access or from superior skill and strategic insight, much like a well-researched historical novel.