Hot Topic
What the algorithmic trading framework requires of brokers and of the vendors they empanel, with every obligation traced to its circular.
3 pieces published on this topic · Updated
The framework is unusual among regulations in how specific it is. It does not set principles and leave firms to interpret them; it names a threshold, a change frequency, a retention period and a party who carries the risk. That specificity is why being precise about it is cheap credibility, and why being vague about it is immediately visible to the people who read it.
The structure that matters most is the allocation of responsibility. Algo providers are empanelled by the broker and treated as the broker's agents rather than as independently regulated entities, and they have no route to an exchange of their own. Which means the accountable principal for every order is the broker, regardless of whose software formed it.
The second thing worth understanding is that the enforcement record now reaches vendor conduct through the broker. The adjudication orders of 25 March 2026 penalised brokers not for what they published but for remaining integrated with a platform whose marketplace hosted strategies advertising returns. A vendor's public material is therefore part of the broker's compliance surface, which is a conclusion most vendor conversations never reach.
Engineering deep-dives covering this topic.
Who registers the algorithm, whose static IP it is, and who carries the liability, answered from the circulars, with every reference attached.
The retention obligation, the fields an inspection actually asks for, and why "comprehensive logging" is not an answer to the question.
How authorised API access works under the framework, and why the once-per-calendar-week limit on changing an IP breaks naive failover designs.
Describe a strategy in plain language, backtest it against historical data, and paper trade it before any capital is committed.
