Awesome - if you want it to be real, it'd be better as net result (i.e. the calc you do at the bottom) than as gross offer, due to the variable taxation.

> PS: Your depth graph is not a depth graph. You need to invert the bids and you need max order size, not min.

Sweet details, thanks. Just implemented https://4g0r4.github.io/cc-sat/

AGORA

so that's worse than this offer. It's also listed at the bottom of the book (correctly so). The bid side is of course the best offer, because that matches k00b's at a loss for the maker. But Darth "left", so is it even actual?

PS: Your depth graph is not a depth graph. You need to invert the bids and you need max order size, not min.

No, I think it is what surplus means. Read the post. bullish has CCs they don't need. That's it. They're liquidating them.

deleted by author

Your calc says (ask side):

> Trading 1,000 CC: you pay **1000 sats** and receive **700 CC** (300 CC lost to the 30% fee).

so that's worse than this offer. It's also listed at the bottom of the book (correctly so). The bid side is of course the best offer, because that matches k00b's at a loss for the maker. But Darth "left", so is it even actual?

PS: Your depth graph is not a depth graph. You need to invert the bids and you need max order size, not min.

----

Edit, cuz forgot to answer:

> is just for simplicity?

No, I think it is what surplus means. Read the post. bullish has CCs they don't need. That's it. They're liquidating them.