Evaluating FMZ for Live Trading and Exchange API Integration
Summary
The author questions whether FMZ is worthwhile when moving a strategy from backtesting to live trading. They describe having to rewrite or adapt functions because exchange APIs differ, backtested functions may fail in live use, and tasks such as placing take-profit, stop-loss, or batch orders require exchange-specific calls. The author also compares FMZ documentation with exchange documentation and says the latter was easier for them to navigate.
The post weighs possible platform benefits, including protection against denial-of-service attacks, automatic recovery after a bot crash, strategy sales, and copy trading. The author finds these benefits insufficient or incomplete in their own experience and suggests that writing a bot directly against exchange APIs could avoid platform costs and concerns about data exposure. This is an individual opinion rather than a controlled comparison: it provides no systematic cost, reliability, or security measurements, and does not establish that the same tradeoffs apply to every user or setup.
Key ideas
- Moving a strategy from backtesting to live trading can require substantial exchange-specific changes.
- Exchange API differences can make it difficult to use one unified trading function across venues.
- The author weighs platform features against direct API development, costs, and concerns about strategy or API exposure.
- The post is a personal assessment and gives no measured comparison of reliability, cost, or security.
Tags
This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.