In the present case, I am of the opinion that at the time of his testimony Shabbat mixed the expression "market maker" with reference to the company with which the plaintiff allegedly contracted, when he referred to a situation in which the company is making a market as a situation in which there is a real person who enters into a position against the customer - i.e., a situation in which it is ostensibly a company that is covered. Moreover, the defendants claimed that the company with which the plaintiff contracted (and as stated, I am of the opinion that in any case it is a company connected to Global or Shabbat) did not make a market, but in practice they did not bring any evidence relating to the manner in which that arena actually operated. Thus, during Shabbat's explanation of the manner in which the plaintiff collects the fees, he explained in line 11 on page 165 and up to line 16 on page 166 as follows:
"Adv. Asif: So tell me again, tell me about these fees. What exactly are these fees of the company?
The witness, Mr. Shabbat Laurent: Very simple. The company, in fact, there is like every trading room in the world, the company actually uses a market maker. What does the market do? It is an entity that actually assumes the risk of the transaction, or as we call it, thecounter party. That means you decided at the time that Google would come up within 30 days. That's therate And on the other hand, there is someone who buys the option. It's the same, it works just like vanilla options And that's where the concept came from. binary options. I actually worked at Credit Suisse in the United States who came up with this and said wait a second, there's a simpler way to do it... Now, the idea was to shorten and create options for the masses. Now, how does the company actually make a profit? The company actually sells the same option for the customer and on the other hand thecounter party He comes and gives the option against.
Adv. Asif: So what is the fee?