I was exploring the backtesting models available with opstra & I am surprised to see that not many of them offer cheaper APIs. This hinders the hobbyist's algo trading enabled over broker apis.
Especially those who are running your custom setup, how do you manage to backtest the strategy, especially when index price is so volatile & backtesting ATM itself is much of a hassle?
Basically, this is the story of the constitutional challenge we presented to the debate fest in NLU. We selected the NDPS act to provide a strong case against it. Debate went on to fundamental rights & implementation of article 13(b) within the framework of rights, and voila, we discovered a gem.
Here is the brief:
Article 13(2) of the Constitution says any law contravening fundamental rights "shall be void." Not voidable upon judicial review. Void. By constitutional force itself.
Yet trial courts routinely apply laws of doubtful constitutionality, citing the doctrine that "only higher courts can decide." That doctrine ( L. Chandra Kumar) is a judicial decision. It cannot override the Constitution. No judicial decision can. Yet the NDPS act bans cannabis consumption violating articles 25, 14, 31 and others.
The result: every court applying a void law is operating outside its constitutional authority. Every detention under such a law lacks a lawful basis. Every conviction compounds an ongoing constitutional violation that the institution itself is committing. And we must demand compensation.
This isn't theoretical. Forty years of NDPS prosecutions, sedition cases, UAPA detentions, and other restrictions on fundamental rights have proceeded on this inversion, procedural convenience treated as if it were higher than the constitutional text.
The Constitution doesn't permit conditional supremacy. The text is unambiguous. The institutions have been operating as if it were ambiguous because that is convenient for them and costly only to citizens.
Tldr: Despite constitution using the phrase "shall be void", the judiciary ignores it treating like "shall be void subject to judicial review".
I met a founder whose product is built but with no revenue. He requires b2b market penetration. My proposal is to generate an acquisition setup for him from scratch ranging from use case building to onboarding first customer.
I would like to ask the founders here about the hurdles they faced to get first customer & would you think 5 lacs is a fair demand for such service?
What I am proposing is not just a customer but rather the whole pipeline, curated for ICPs for the product. Keeping in mind, along with 2 months timelines, I am estimating this number. Please share your take!
Basically, this is the story of the constitutional challenge we presented to the debate fest in NLU. We selected the NDPS act to provide a strong case against it. Debate went on to fundamental rights & implementation of article 13(b) within the framework of rights, and voila, we discovered a gem.
Here is the brief:
Article 13(2) of the Constitution says any law contravening fundamental rights "shall be void." Not voidable upon judicial review. Void. By constitutional force itself.
Yet trial courts routinely apply laws of doubtful constitutionality, citing the doctrine that "only higher courts can decide." That doctrine ( L. Chandra Kumar) is a judicial decision. It cannot override the Constitution. No judicial decision can. Yet the NDPS act bans cannabis consumption violating articles 25, 14, 31 and others.
The result: every court applying a void law is operating outside its constitutional authority. Every detention under such a law lacks a lawful basis. Every conviction compounds an ongoing constitutional violation that the institution itself is committing. And we must demand compensation.
This isn't theoretical. Forty years of NDPS prosecutions, sedition cases, UAPA detentions, and other restrictions on fundamental rights have proceeded on this inversion, procedural convenience treated as if it were higher than the constitutional text.
The Constitution doesn't permit conditional supremacy. The text is unambiguous. The institutions have been operating as if it were ambiguous because that is convenient for them and costly only to citizens.