<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Data Engineering on Lynx Tech Blog</title><link>https://blog.lynxflow.co/en/tags/data-engineering/</link><description>Recent content in Data Engineering on Lynx Tech Blog</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2026 12:56:00 +0800</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://blog.lynxflow.co/en/tags/data-engineering/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>My Quant Platform Was Throwing Away 92% of the Trades — and Believed It Saw Everything</title><link>https://blog.lynxflow.co/en/posts/alphatrace-venue-data-loss-2026/</link><pubDate>Sun, 13 Sep 2026 12:56:00 +0800</pubDate><guid>https://blog.lynxflow.co/en/posts/alphatrace-venue-data-loss-2026/</guid><description>&lt;img src="https://blog.lynxflow.co/images/alphatrace-venue-data-loss-2026.png" alt="Featured image of post My Quant Platform Was Throwing Away 92% of the Trades — and Believed It Saw Everything" /&gt;TL;DR While adding a data source to AlphaTrace, I ran a routine check against live data and found something I had never once doubted: the platform silently discards 92% of spot trades the moment it reads them off-chain — and says nothing. This post is about that self-correction, and about the second mistake I nearly made.
It started with someone else&amp;rsquo;s article A few days ago I read a write-up: two people ran a cross-market arbitrage between Hyperliquid&amp;rsquo;s equity perpetuals and the tra</description></item></channel></rss>