Keep using quantity instead of "contract size"

[klochowicz]

I think we all agree that our understanding of "quantity" has somewhat changed/evolved since the start of the project.
Recently we started renaming it to "n_contracts", "contracts", "contract size" etc. I have a feeling all of these names are somewhat awkward and redundant - "quantity" is used even by bitmex with definition "Order quantity in units of the instrument (i.e. contracts)."

In other words, could we keep the name "quantity", but align with the bitmex definition?

[thomaseizinger]

Quantity and contracts seem to be equivalent. Contract size is different though, right?

I am pretty much ambivalent on quantity vs contracts although I have a slight preference for the unit-less contracts terminology. IMO it highlights better that you are not trading dollars but something that is worth 1 dollar (per contract).

[klochowicz]

IMHO it's not different, and we're inventing different terminology without a good reason. See Bitmex FAQ:

"For example, a contract with Lot Size of 100 would allow order quantities of 100, 200, 500, or 1000 contracts but would reject quantities of 1, 5, 10, 35, 125, or 250 contracts"

https://www2.bitmex.com/app/faq

it seems that order contract size == order quantity.

PS "Lot Size" would also be a much better name than size per parcel

[thomaseizinger]

PS "Lot Size" would also be a much better name than size per parcel

Happy to adopt that!

The way I understood it is "contract size" == value per contract == $1 for us and quantity == number of contracts. From reading the page you linked, that seems to be consistent in that the FAQ refers to the number of contracts as a unit-less value. They are talking about orders with a quantity of 100 or 200 contracts.

I think using the term quantity is completely fine. I am just pointing out that the "unit" of quantity is contracts in BitMex, .e. you place an order for 400 contracts, not for $400.

[klochowicz]

we have renamed parcel to "lot": #1587

[klochowicz]

It seems that no-one objected to keeping the term "quantity". Locking the discussion and marking it as "archived".

[luckysori]

I missed this discussion (I actuallly thought it was only about "parcel" vs "lot").

I also prefer "contracts" over "quantity". See 5034331#diff-fcdf49cf28b52ed4be73680c9515cf4aadc3af124733b2cd4f9756dee6617d5cR983. We can revert that naming change if we're no longer trending in that direction though.

[bonomat]

I also didn't focus on this. Let's keep it open and put it into one of our iteration to come to a conclusion.

[klochowicz]

It would be good to reach conclusion soon, as it was open for over 2 months! :D

[klochowicz]

I missed this discussion (I actuallly thought it was only about "parcel" vs "lot").

I also prefer "contracts" over "quantity". See 5034331#diff-fcdf49cf28b52ed4be73680c9515cf4aadc3af124733b2cd4f9756dee6617d5cR983. We can revert that naming change if we're no longer trending in that direction though.

that is a rather unfortunate change that I have missed in review ;/

in short, the original argument was that "quantity" is the more common term. Units would be perhaps good too, as together you could talk about "quantity of Units".

I must say I'm not a fan of Contracts at all, because CFDs are Contracts For Difference. Happy to hear other opinions, or even get out-voted, but let's reach a decision soon. :)