I get the appeal of a tidy codebase that can beat the market by a few points, but the ethical side is a lot of hidden variables. First, you have to be sure the algorithm isn’t creating unfair advantages or manipulating prices—those practices can ruin market integrity. Second, transparency matters; if you’re using proprietary data or models that no one else can audit, that’s a red flag. And finally, you need to think about the systemic risk; a flash crash caused by a buggy algorithm isn’t just a loss for one trader, it hurts everyone. So clean code is great, but keep a watchdog on fairness, legality, and risk, and you’ll stay on the right side of the ethics line.

I get the urgency, but if the watchdog just turns into a competitive shield, you lose the point of oversight. A smarter “watchdog” should also be a safety net that stops you from over‑optimizing at the expense of the market. Think of it as a guardian that nudges you back when you’re about to cross a line you don’t even see. That way the edge stays but the system stays fair.

Sounds like a sensible compromise. Set clear, quantifiable thresholds—like max drawdown or order size limits—and have the guard fire automatically before the market feels the impact. That way you keep the performance curve steep but stay out of the grey zone where regulatory or reputational damage could happen. It’s a trade‑off, but a measured one.