=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3147/paper12
|storemode=property
|title=Playing (with) the markets: Gamification and playfulness in brokerage platforms
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3147/paper12.pdf
|volume=Vol-3147
|authors=Agustin Ferrari Braun,Alex Gekker
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/gamifin/BraunG22
}}
==Playing (with) the markets: Gamification and playfulness in brokerage platforms==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3147/paper12.pdf
Playing (with) the markets: Gamification and playfulness in
brokerage platforms
Agustin Ferrari Braun1, Alex Gekker2
1
University of Amsterdam, Turfdraagsterspad 9, Amsterdam 1012 XT, Netherlands
2
Tel Aviv University, Naftali Building, Tel - Aviv University, PO Box 39040, Ramat Aviv. Tel Aviv, 69978, Israel
Abstract
In early 2021, millions of amateur traders managed to turn the direction of the markets against
established Wall Street funds by heavily investing in GameStop stock. The event led to a
proliferation of discourses on the role of brokerage platforms in the gamification of trading.
Swimming against the current, the present paper reviews the different lines of argumentation
deployed by these commentators while calling into question their usage of the concept of
gamification. It does so through a comparative interfacial analysis of three major brokerage
platforms, showing that they all share common representations of the markets, which do not
mobilise game-like elements. Faced with a lack of empirical evidence for the gamification
hypothesis, we propose instead to explore the autotelic logics of play that emerge between the
user(s) and the media object(s).
Keywords 1
Brokerage Platforms; eToro; DeGiro; Plus500; Gamification; Play; Playthings.
1. Introduction heightened market volatility, with “gamification
and user experience” being on top of the list [2].
Here and throughout most of the section, the
On January 25 2021, a post on r/
phenomenon seems to be understood primarily as
WallStreetBets, one of Reddit’s largest forums
an interfacial feature (e.g. [3]), in what Deterding
dedicated to “retail” trading (intended for
names the “nudging” rhetoric of gamification.
individuals buying and selling stocks), has
The events of January 2021 revealed structural
launched a community coordinated “short-
deficiencies in the regulation of online brokerages
squeeze” of the GameStop retail chain stock. The
in both sides of the Atlantic, prompting action
result was a novel power exerted over financial
from the European Commission [4], the American
markets, including major financial loses incurred
Congress [2] and the self-regulatory association
by established institutional actors who invested in
of American brokers [5]. Game-like elements in
GameStop losing value over time (“shorting”). On
mass available trading software were at the core
February 23rd 2021, the chairman of the European
of this regulatory drive [6]. In this section we
Securities and Markets Authorities (ESMA),
review the two main lines of argument deployed
Steven Maijoor, delivered a statement to the EU
to criticise the supposed gamification of trading,
Parliament on the short squeeze and its
namely that these platforms encourage financial
ramifications, where he singled out gamification
behaviours standing against the best interests of
as one of the driving causes of the market run [1,
inexperienced traders (consumer welfare); and
p. 3]. His American counterpart, Gary Glenser
that the higher trading volume from retail users
from the U.S. Securities and Exchange
significantly dilutes the markets’ capacity for
Commission (SEC), would quickly follow suit
price-discovery and liquidity allocation (market
during the congressional hearings around the
quality).
event. Glenser presented seven factors leading to
6th International GamiFIN Conference 2022 (GamiFIN 2022),
April 26-29, 2022, Finland
EMAIL: a.l.ferrraribraun@uva.nl (A.1); gekker@tauex.tau.ac.il
(A.2). ORCID: 0000-0003-0133-0047 (A. 1); 0000-0001-6042-
2086 (A. 2)
©️ 2020 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative
Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
115
In their extensive review of the FinTech However, a more economically oriented line of
discourses on gamification [7] show that they argument has also flourished over the last year.
hinge on a generational perspective that sees The number of retail investors has been on the rise
game-like elements as crucial to include since 2012, a dynamic further accelerated by the
millennials in the financial systems. The argument COVID-19 pandemic. As of 2020, even before the
goes like this: the coming of age of those born GameStop Short Squeeze drove massive attention
between 1980 and 2000 was characterised by both to these services, retail investors were already
the 2008 Global Financial Crisis and the massive moving 20% of the total U.S. equities trading
development of digital technologies [8]. volume [16]. The economical critique considers
Millennials are the first “digital natives” while their (gamified) actions as “noise” [17], which do
also sharing a distrust of traditional financial not reflect coherent strategies. When retail traders
services. Gamification is presented as an answer start to command a significant part of the daily
to this conundrum, using the logics of games to volume, their noise can affect the markets’
appeal to the rational pleasure-seeking impulsions capacity to discover prices and allocate capital.
cultivated by digital platforms, and directing that According to legal scholar James Fallows Tierney
energy into a financial sector [7, p. 10]. These [18, pp. 34-35],
discourses present gamification as an effective
method to foster financial literacy and inclusion,
necessary to achieve full citizenship within the the combination of zero-commission trading
neoliberal paradigm [9]. Far from being a mere and gamification may distort price discovery
sales pitch, this perspective was embraced by processes by increasing both price movement
political and legal institutions, that have actively and volatility in the stocks most popular
among retail investors. […] Gamification
encouraged the development of FinTech
practices can capture retail investors’
platforms (REFS). attention and thereby induce trading in stocks
A more critical approach accepts that for reasons—like the payoff that the
gamification will increase financial inclusion, but intermediary receives from generating this
warn that it can come at the cost of the users’ best order flow— that are unrelated to the “value”
interests. The entire democratising drive is the investment offers.
premised on including those who were previously
uncatered to by traditional financial institutions
[10], which also means that they tend to be The market-quality argument against the
unsophisticated investors with little knowledge of gamification of trading uses similar evidence than
the markets. The inclusion of features like the customer welfare one but pointing at wider
personalised recommendation algorithms or push ramifications. “Noise” trades are conceptualised
notifications encourage users to trade extensively, as both harmful for discrete individuals, and
reacting to the stimuli put forward by the platform actively hindering the markets’ social function.
and engaging in trading strategies that are very An appealing interface might look enticing, but it
unlikely to yield benefits in the long run [11, 12]. could wreak havoc on our market-based society.
Thus eththusiastic trading without professional The recent explosion of research and
knowledge and tools produces the opposite regulatory endeavours on gamified trading proves
outcome for novel traders [13, 14]. At the same beyond doubt that this is a salient issue in Western
time, excessive trading disproportionately economies. However, much of the work relies on
benefits the platform services, who obtain a rent the American day-trading platform Robinhood as
through each trade that they intermediate. It is the main object of study. While the Californian
therefore in their best interest to develop gamified platform has certainly experienced considerable
features that increase user engagement [15]. This success since the mid-2010s, it remains based on
perspective postulates that rather than fulfilling the United States and has failed to expand to other
their duty of care towards novice investors, markets (REF). In Europe, a number of different
trading platforms cynically encourage them to platforms have emerged, with offers better
engage in behaviours contrary to their own
interests through a series of gamified nudges.
The consumer-welfare argument certainly is
the most compelling, particularly when
considering the stories of novice investors losing
everything through a series of bad deals (REFS).
116
adapted to EU regulations, both in terms of offer2 the recent development of critical perspectives
and customer protection. These platforms were seems to indicate that the times they are a-
actively involved in events such as the GameStop changing. The extensive growth of retail trading
Short Squeeze, which makes it even more in the last years can be indicative of further
puzzling that the head of the ESMA only financial inclusion, but its price may have been
mentioned Robinhood by name in the statement too high. Unsuspecting traders have lost huge
that opened this section [1]. It is also worth quantities of money, and market devices have
mentioning that Robinhood’s User Experience been put under pressure, during an already
Design (UX) contains some of the most explicit challenging economic environment due to the
gamified elements, such as free stocks and a slot pandemic. However, for these critiques to land
machine simulator, which are largely absent from with further strength, more diverse case studies
the majority of services. Perhaps more must be put forward and sophisticated
importantly, Robinhood’s business model is understandings of play are needed.
based on Payment For Order Flow (PFOF), an
approach that allows the platform to redirect the 2. Methodology
trades being made on the app to third-parties for
execution. While some European services, like
To analyse the presence of game-like elements
the German TradeRepublic (REF), use PFOF, it is
in trading platforms, we applied a walkthrough
significantly less present in the EU than in
America. It is illegal in some member countries, approach to eToro, DeGiro and Plus500,
such as the Netherlands [21] and the European prominent European retail trading platforms
Commission has indicated that it will ban it in all chosen based on popularity and complexity. From
the Union soon [22]. Thus, putting too much the three, eToro is by far the largest, with over 20
emphasis on Robinhood as the only case study million users across five continents [25], DeGiro
risks limiting our understanding of gamified and Plus500 have more modest userbases,
counting 630.000 [26] and 430.00 [27]
trading beyond this specific platform, particularly
when considering the overall FinTech promise to respectively, at the time of writing. Still, these
“democratise finance” [23]. numbers position them as some of the most
On a more substantial level, the current popular platforms in the entire field. Out of the
three, DeGiro is the most complex service,
literature tends to focus too much on UX design
requiring users to have some financial knowledge
rather than posing deeper questions about the
nature of games and play as reflected in broader before investing and presenting itself as a
approaches to gamification. This choice can be allowing individual customers to access the same
explained in practical terms: understanding operating logics as professionals [28]. Plus500, by
trading as entertainment [24] is considerably more contrast, aims at providing “simplified, universal
access to financial markets” [27, p. 9], by
challenging for regulators than seeing it as a
profit-seeking venture [18, pp. 21-22]. Yet, these exclusively focusing on a particular product:
considerations still leave us with a blind spot Contracts For Difference (CFDs). eToro stands
when it comes to defining the grammars of play somewhere in the middle of the two, offering a
mobilised by these platforms. As [6, p. 725] large range of products to their clients, and
championing a social media inspired aesthetic.
briefly mention when arguing against regulation
that exclusively focus on software affordances: Originally developed in the field of Human
“games in general are not identified by the Computer Interaction to test usability,
presence of particular features or elements, but by walkthroughs have recently been
a Wittgensteinian “family resemblance” to other reconceptualised by new media scholars seeking
games”. While we do not fully share their methodologies that allow in-depth engagements
analytical approach, we do agree that definitions with apps [26, p. 10]. Despite their relative
of gamification relying on normative novelty, several distinct approaches have already
interpretations of software design choices are both been developed (e.g., [29]); here we decided to
scholarly shallow and easy to circumvent. follow the post-phenomenological approach
While pro-gamification perspectives have mapped out by [30, p. 3] James Ash, Ben
been met with approval in professional sectors [7], Anderson, Rachel Gordon and Paul Langley. This
2
Perhaps the most salient example is the widespread adoption of owning the underlying asset [19], and the possibility of trading in
Contracts For Difference (CFDs), a type of derivative product Forex [20].
allowing traders to bet on the course of a particular stock without
117
version of the method stresses the ways in which 3. Legibility and Friction in Retail
“interfaces modulate user action”, focusing on the
different units that compose the interface as a Trading
whole. By doing so, we were able to interrogate
the brokerage platforms’ interfaces as Despite the understandable differences in
“assemblages of objects that are positioned and commercial positioning and brand identity, eToro,
spaced in relation to one another in order to DeGiro and Plus500 share a core approach to
transduce qualities for both other objects in the trading that is premised on their similar business
interface and the user engaging with that model. As closed platforms, their goal is to
interface” [31, p. 31]. Rather than analysing an develop an interfacial experience that multiplies
interface as a complete and finished system, it transactions, which necessarily requires a heavy,
stresses the relationality of its parts, and how they yet indirect, management of both information and
are individually leveraged to generate a response user interaction [34, p. 22]. Our research showed
from the user. that these two factors were central to the user
As part of the walkthrough methodology, one experience with the platform yet had little if any
of the authors traded daily on all three platforms connection to game-like elements. Instead, they
throughout February and early March 2021. They combined highly visual elements, easily available
constituted an investment portfolio based around texts and graphics, pop-ups that take little time to
markets available in all three platforms and interact with, and tacit fillings of information. The
moved them around to test the different interfacial amalgamation of these features generates two
configurations made available by the platform3. crucial features. On the one hand, the markets
Rather than trying to emulate what an average become legible even for the less financially
user would do, they set out to explore the interface literate user; on the other, the potential frictions
without taking into consideration any given [31] emerging at the moment of putting cash on
trading strategy, instead focusing on the units the line are systemically reduced.
mobilised by the interface at each time. Since our The most salient interfacial element of all three
goal was to investigate the common denominators platforms were their spectacular displays of
present in all platforms, we did not pay particular dynamic pricing, meaning the modulation of the
attention to features specific to each service, like “commercial value of a product or service based
the capacity of making public posts on eToro, or on perceived market conditions” [35, p. 4]. Each
DeGiro’s combined orders. This is consistent with platform developed a similar approach to price
[32, p. 8]’s strategy to focus on certain aspects of display, as exemplified by fig.1. Users are
the interfacial experience while accepting that constantly subjected to a very visual arrangement
others might not be part of the final research of information, in which price variations are
output. In using the platforms, we sought out identified through green or red flashes, building
specific interfacial elements that conformed (or on traditional trading floors visuals. It is easy to
not) with previously outlined understandings of gain a sense of the general direction of a market
gamification, namely: interactive elements that through a quick glance to the screen, and the use
increase engagement based on extrinsic of vivid colours leaves no room for
motivations. Particularly, we examined how the misunderstanding. This approach to price
amalgamation of design features generate high- variation has two main advantages. It directs the
level affordances, “the kinds of dynamics and user’s attentions to a couple of factors that are
conditions enabled by technical devices, crucial for their engagement with the platform,
platforms and media [...] the kinds of namely the prices at which they can buy or sell
communicative practices and habits they enable positions, and the changes of the market on a
or constrain” [33, p. 245). We will argue here that given timeframe. By constantly updating prices,
the high-level affordances of brokerage platforms they provide a sense of inclusion in a high-speed
are destined to generate legibility and reduce world where things are constantly changing. It is
friction. common wisdom that investing in the financial
markets is a matter of speed and timing [36]. The
visual exaggeration of market shifts gives users
3 Out of privacy concerns, the screenshots of eToro and currency. DeGiro does not have this function, so the amounts
Plus500 reproduced on this piece were taken in the platform’s traded where hidden when necessary.
demo mode, which allows user to trade with an inexistent
118
the sense that they are active agents in the The spectacular display of pricing variations
interconnected world of international finance. and the easily-accessible information on securities
are part of the high-level affordance that we call
“legibility”. One of the main challenges that
brokerage platforms face is the intrinsic
complexity of financial markets. As critical
perspectives on finance have noted time and time
again (e.g. [37]), the alienating nature of financial
information derives both from the intrinsic
complexity of an international infrastructure and
from an ideological drive to keep the markets’
inner workings as complex as possible. Without
necessarily affording more clarity into those inner
workings, brokerage platforms need to reduce that
Figure 1: Price variations on the watchlist screen alienation. If we were to follow the gamification
of eToro hypothesis, this reduction would entail the usage
of game-like elements. However, in reality, they
The initial visual inclusion is then completed generate legibility through visual exaggerations of
by the platforms’ complementary offer of market trends and easily-available financial
financial news to all their users. Each one of them information, all of which are displayed in the
have a page devoted to each available security, familial environment of a platform. Legibility
providing general data about its performance. does not emerge from game elements; it emerges
These market profiles contain basic information, from carefully curated access to information.
including their price, variations on different time The second element that brokerage platforms
frames and, if they are related to a company, their need to manage is friction. After [32, p. 3], we
market cap. Popular securities often have their understand friction as “bodily and technical
own news aggregator, that collects news articles obstacles or hesitancies that interrupt, slow or stop
on the security in real time. These small reports a user from completing a task within a digital
offer a condensed overlook into the behaviour of interface, such as choosing a service or buying a
a stock, which are both easier to understand than product”. This friction is particularly present
complex technical profiles, and considerably during thresholds, the “necessary moment or point
easier to access, since it only requires two clicks in interfaces that a designer needs to encourage
to go form the home screen to a security’s page. the user to cross or move beyond. Always
The information offered by the platforms cannot involving some kind of movement, thresholds are
be described as pathbreaking in any meaningful occasions of discontinuity within an interface”
way: anybody with an internet connection can [31, p. 6]. If generating legibility as a high-level
find the same data on websites like Yahoo affordance is necessary for brokerage platforms to
Finance, The Motley Fool or MarketWatch. Their get users to interact with the financial markets,
direct integration within the interface, however, is reducing friction to a minimum is fundamental to
crucial to lower the threshold to interact with get them to trade. As mentioned in above, the
financial information. At the same time, the business model of these services is based on
organisation of information shows the priorities of exploiting the spread, the more users trade, the
the platforms: as brokerages, they are mainly more revenue is generated for the platforms.
interested in pushing the users to trade. Behavioural economists have pointed out (e.g.
Information is thus structured around securities, [11], [24], [38]) that users of brokerage platforms
rather than providing a sense of the macro-trends tend to trade considerably more than other agents;
in the markets, as more advanced software like the we argue that this is due to the interfacial
Bloomberg Professional Services would do. By reduction of friction.
adding a news-aggregator feature to their activity Entering a trade is the most obvious example
as brokerages, these services are fully leveraging of a threshold. To reduce potential hesitancy, the
the possibilities of the platform structure, three platforms decided to use a pop-up system
integrating different, formerly distinct, elements whereby the object enabling trading appears
into one experience. superimposed to the screen in which it was opened
(fig. 2). eToro and Plus500 go as far as to
automatically propose a certain number of stocks
119
(known as “position”) to the users, as little as 20€ or even 1€. Depositing money is
algorithmically designed to fit their profile. Some the biggest threshold for retail trading platforms,
basic variables are included in these screens, such the moment in which users decide to put their cash
as the possibility to automatically close a position on the line. One could think that these screens
in case of loses or earnings surpassing a certain would be the most detailed ones, but as fig. 3
amount. Once the user has entered the values that shows, they are some of the most understated,
they would like to purchase or sale, they only have with bare minimal elements. Once again, the
to click on a big – distinctly coloured - button to specifics of the transaction are rendered invisible
execute the trade. Users are not able to decipher by the interface, and users are only required to
from any of these screens who they are trading acquiesce or slightly modify parameters that have
with and how the positions they bought will already been chosen for them.
become theirs. The use of pop-ups and the
underlying presence of other screens when the
deals commence present the central activity of the
platform - trading - as a relatively minor activity.
Far from being the central interfacial experience,
as one could expect, it is presented as a formality
that is not meant to cost too much time, implicitly
assuming that users already know what they want
when they open a trading window. By doing so,
the platforms reduce friction at a core moment of
engagement (committing one’s money to the Figure 3: Deposit screen in the eToro desktop
market) and integrate this crucial aspect into the version.
overall flow of the interface.
By generating legibility and reducing friction,
brokerage platforms create an interfacial regime
in which anybody with a passing knowledge of
finance can engage with the markets. This drive to
popularise access to finance, removing
knowledge and operational barriers, is at the core
of the FinTech business model [37]. However, as
opposed to what the proliferation of discourses on
the gamification of trading may led to believe,
game-like elements are altogether absent from the
Figure 2: Trading screen opened to buy a position core interfacial of these platforms. Confronted
on Tesla, on the right side of the interface, in the with a lack of empirical evidence, the validity of
Plus500 desktop version. these discourses is called into question, forcing us
to consider a different approach to their
The same streamlined approach characterises playfulness.
the deposit of funds. All platforms accept several
forms of payment, including PayPal, iDeal 4. Conclusion
(regional Dutch e-payment service), bank transfer
and credit card wiring, and they all have
The GameStop Short-Squeeze highlighted the
predetermined amounts that can be automatically
role of brokerage platforms in amateur trading.
charged. Plus500 automatically suggested to
Hardly a week has gone by in 2021 without a new
deposit 500€, while eToro prefilled the form for
type of financial scandal containing a conspicuous
the value of 1000€; DeGiro did not have a
element of playfulness. Heated trading of stock in
prefilled form, but had buttons to add 1000€,
companies like AMC Entertainment or
2000€, 5000€ and 10000€. This is particularly
BlackBerry among retail investors [40], the
interesting when considering that DeGiro, as
phenomenon of so-called “shitcoins” [41], or the
opposed to the other two, does not require users to
exponential appreciation of Bored Apes Non-
deposit a minimal amount to trade: while it
Fungible Tokens [42], all seemingly combine into
encourages newcomers to invest up to 10000€, the
a series of “gameful” interactions with the
same users could access the same functions with
financial markets. At the same time, a continuous
120
critique has been levied by industry and https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pressco
academics alike regarding the hazards of such rner/detail/en/ip_21_6251.
practices to both amateur investors (consumer [5] FINRA, Report, 2021 Report on FINRA’s
welfare) and the established financial flows as a Examination and Risk Monitoring
whole (market quality) Yet, as our comparative
Program, 2021. URL:
research of eToro, DeGiro and Plus500 shows,
rather than gamefulness per se, the apps excel at
https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/
the management of the legibility of financial 2021-02/2021-report-finras-
markets, through the friction (slowing down or examination-risk-monitoring-
speeding up) certain aspects of the trading program.pdf.
experience. [6] Langvardt, J. F. Tierney, On ‘Confetti
While gamification seems like a popular (and Regulation’: The Wrong Way to
somewhat populist) explanation of the apps’ Regulate Gamified Investing, The Yale
success, the resulting picture is more complex. Law Journal Forum, vol. 131, pp. 717 –
Instead, the aforementioned apps allow for a form 741 (2021).
of collective power exertion of the financial [7] A. Van der Heide, D. Želinský, ‘Level up
markets by presenting retail traders with the your money game’: An analysis of
information and capacities up until very recently
reserved for major institutional players only. If
gamification discourse in financial
any, instead of providing extrinsic rewards services, Journal of Cultural Economy,
contingent on the apps logic, the retail traders pp. 1–21 (2021).
“level up” by “playing” the markets correctly. [8] D. Takahashi, Article, TradeOff gamifies
fantasy stock market trading to teach
financial skills, VentureBeat, 1. January
5. References 2020, 2020. URL:
https://venturebeat.com/2020/01/01/trad
[1] European Securities and Markets eoff-gamifies-fantasy-stock-market-
Autority, Introductory statement, ECON trading-to-teach-financial-
Exchange of views in relation to skills/?fbclid=IwAR2r7o1Pxh3o1jUpbC
GameStop share trading and related m7mynrtqipRBGb67Ni5Ye1NIYXVTF
phenomena, 2021. URL: P_NInj_69l7E.
https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/defaul [9] P. Langley, Uncertain Subjects of Anglo-
t/files/library/esma22-105- American Financialization, Cultural
1307_introductory_statement_on_games Critique, vol. 65, pp. 67–91 (2007).
top_share_trading_-_steven_maijoor.pdf [10] A. Brown, Article, Robinhood Is Not
[2] SEC, Article, Testimony Before the House Gamifying Markets. It’s Democratizing
Committee on Financial Services, 2021. Them, in Bloomberg, 18. December
URL: 2020, 2020. URL:
https://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/gensler https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/art
-testimony-20210505. icles/2020-12-17/robinhood-is-
[3] S. Deterding, D. Dixon, R. Khaled, L. democratizing-markets-not-making-
Nacke, From game design elements to them-a-game
gamefulness: Defining ‘gamification, in: [11] R. Reith, M. Fisher, B. Lis, Explaining
Proceedings of the 15th International the intention to use social trading
Academic MindTrek Conference: platforms: an empirical investigation,
Envisioning Future Media Journal of Business Economics, vol. 90,
Environments, pp. 9-15 (n.d.) pp. 427 – 460 (2019).
[4] European Commission, Capital Markets [12] B. M. Barber, X. Huang, T. Odean, C.
Union: Commission proposes new Schwarz, Attention Induced Trading and
measures to boost Europe's capital Returns: Evidence from Robinhood
markets, 2021. URL: Users, Journal of Finance, (forthcoming).
Available:
121
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insig
abstract_id=3715077. hts-and-
events/insights/2021/12/payment-for-
[13] B. Barber, Y.-T. Lee, Y.-J. Liu and T. order-flow-
Odean, Just How Much Do Individual ban#:~:text=Under%20PFOF%2C%20b
Investors Lose By Trading?, Review of rokers%20route%20their,that%20execut
Financial Studies, vol. 22, no. 2, (2009). es%20the%20client's%20order.
Available: 10.2139/ssrn.529062. [23] P. Langley, A. Leyshon, The Platform
[14] B. Barber, Y.-T. Lee, Y.-J. Liu and T. Political Economy of FinTech:
Odean, The cross-section of speculator Reintermediation, Consolidation and
skill: Evidence from day trading, Journal Capitalisation, New Political Economy,
of Financial Markets, vol. 18, pp. 1-24 pp. 1–13 (2020).
(2014). Available: [24] D. Dorn, P. Sengmueller, Trading as
10.1016/j.finmar.2013.05.006. Entertainment. Management Science,
[15] G. K. S. Tan, Democratizing finance vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 591 – 603 (2009).
with Robinhood: Financial [25] eToro, Article, Here’s To 20 Million
infrastructure, interface design and eToro Users!, 2021. URL:
platform capitalism, Environment and https://www.etoro.com/news-and-
Planning A: Economy and Space, vol. 53, analysis/etoro-updates/20m-users.
no. 8, pp. 1862–1878 (2021). [26] DeGiro, Press & Figures, 2021.
[16] C. McCabe, It Isn’t Just AMC, Retail Retrieved from:
Traders Increase Pull on the Stock https://www.degiro.co.uk/about-
Market. The Wall Street Journal, 18. June degiro/news-and-press
2021, 2021. URL: [27] Plus500, Report, Annual Report. 2020.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/it-isnt- URL:
just-amc-retail-traders-increase-pull-on- https://cdn.plus500.com/media/Investors
the-stock-market-11624008602. /Reports/Plus500_Annual_Report_20.pd
[17] F. Black, Noise, The Journal of Finance, f.
vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 528-543 (1986). [28] DeGiro, About DeGiro, 2021. Retrieved
[18] J. F. Tierney, Investment Games, Duke from: https://www.degiro.co.uk/about-
Law Journal, (forthcoming). URL: degiro.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? [29] T. Mahatody, S. Mouldi and C. Kolski,
abstract_id=3916407. State of the Art on the Cognitive
[19] D. J. Norman, CFDs: The Definitive Walkthrough Method, Its Variants and
Guide to Contracts for Difference, Evolutions, International Journal of
Harriman House Limited, Bedford, UK, Human–Computer Interaction, 26 (8),
2009. 741-785 (2010).
[20] A. Preda, Noise: Living and Trading in [30] M. Dieter, D. Tkacz, The Patterning of
Electronic Finance, University of Finance/Security: A Designerly
Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA, 2017. Walkthrough of Challenger Banking
[21] Dutch Authority for the Financial Apps. Computational Cultures, vol. 7
Markets (AFM), Article, AFM examines (2020).
quality of order execution on PFOF [31] J. Ash, The Interface Envelope: Gaming,
trading venues, 2022. URL: Technology, Power, Bloomsbury
https://www.afm.nl/en/professionals/nie Academic, London, UK, 2015.
uws/2022/februari/kwaliteit-
orderuitvoering-pfof. [32] J. Ash, B. Anderson, R. Gordon and P.
[22] TaylorWessing, Article, Payment for Langley, Digital interface design and
order flow ban: EU regulators set to power: Friction, threshold, transition,
follow the UK's approach, 2021. URL: Environment and Planning D: Society
122
and Space, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1136-1153 Pump-and-Dump Schemes Go Digital,
(2018). Available: Bloomberg, 2021. URL:
10.1177/0263775818767426. https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/crypto-
[33] T. Bucher, A. Helmond, The scammers-rip-off-billions-as-pump-and-
Affordances of Social Media Platforms, dump-schemes-go-digital-1.1626890.
in: J. Burgess, T. Poell, A. Marwick [42] S. Hissong, Article, How Four NFT
(Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Novices Created a Billion-Dollar
Media, SAGE Publications Ltd, Ecosystem of Cartoon Apes, Rolling
Newbury Park, CA, USA, 2018. Stone, 2021. URL:
[34] P. Langley, A. Leyshon, Platform https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/cu
capitalism: The intermediation and lture-news/bayc-bored-ape-yacht-club-
capitalisation of digital economic nft-interview-1250461/
circulation. Finance and Society, vol. 3,
no. 1, pp. 11-31 (2017).
[35] A. Shapiro, Dynamic Exploits: The
Science of Worker Control in the On-
Demand Economy, Media, Inequality &
Change Center, 2019. Retrieved from
https://mic.asc.upenn.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2020/07/DynamicExplo
its_Final1.pdf
[36] F. Nicoll, Finopower: Governing
Intersections Between Gambling and
Finance, Communication and
Critical/Cultural Studies, vol. 10, no. 4,
pp. 385–405 (2013).
[37] H. Ortiz, The Limits of Financial
Imagination: Free Investors, Efficient
Markets, and Crisis, American
Anthropologist, vol. 116, no. 1, pp. 38–
50 (2014).
[38] D. Y. Aharon and M. Qadan, When do
retail investors pay attention to their
trading platforms?, The North American
Journal of Economics and Finance, vol.
53, p. 101209 (2020). Available:
10.1016/j.najef.2020.101209.
[39] P. Langley, A. Leyshon, The Platform
Political Economy of FinTech:
Reintermediation, Consolidation and
Capitalisation, New Political Economy,
pp. 1–13 (2020).
[40] M. Levine, Spend Your Bitcoins at the
GameStop in the AMC, Bloomberg,
2021. URL:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/art
icles/2021-08-10/spend-your-bitcoins-
at-the-gamestop-in-the-amc.
[41]M. Egkolfopoulou, C. Wells, Article,
Crypto Scammers Rip Off Billions as
123