with pricing formulas that could be also different. No clue on that though because there aren't any volume numbers to analyze for either game.
CX states that it has safeguards in place to detect manipulation. If that's just a BS statement then completely agree with all of RazorHawk's points.
But if its true, there could be other factors to pricing besides volume. They could be using something like a trailing avg. system on volume after IPO then until opening week or they could be nitpicking the volume based on certain users for all we know or there could be some other variable not used on moviestock pricing added to their formula on volume for CX.
Has to be some difference between CX and moviestock valuations other than volume (even taking into account CX IPO dates coming closer to opening than moviestocks which could be around at concept). If not, it makes it out like Moviestocks is the general public gambling and CX is the bookie getting info to set the Vegas line. Bad analogy but the closest thing I can think of that fits my thought.
The process isn't open and it shouldn't be because its supposedly the basis of their movie market exchange. I don't know, my analysis only makes sense if they honestly tried to differentiate the two for their real money thing. If they didn't try to refine pricing for their real money market through CX derivs, I don't see the point of even introducing it on HSX. Actually, don't see the point in introducing it to refine price because accounts could vary widely from $500 to $50k in their real game which negates using safeguards in CX derivatives because they would want that situation to see how to prevent real money manipulation....damn, wish I didn't see this discussion cuz now I made my brain hurt
Was that more of what you were to asking about Rocket? Seperate entities both moved by volume, but no clue how much volume directly effects price in either game if there is a difference in formula since they say there are "safeguards" which implies a difference to me.