How Josh Levine Built Island ECN: The Matching Engine That Rewrote Electronic Trading

Table of Contents

• The Carnegie Mellon Dropout Who Democratized Markets
• Why a FoxPro Database Changed Trading Forever
• The Maker-Taker Model: Game Theory Meets Market Microstructure
• From 3% to 10% Market Share in 24 Months
• The Distributed Architecture That Survived Everything
• What Island’s DNA Teaches Modern Trading Systems
• Decision Framework: Evaluating Your Matching Engine Architecture

The Carnegie Mellon Dropout Who Democratized Markets

Josh Levine dropped out of Carnegie Mellon’s electrical engineering program in the early 1990s. He joined Datek Securities as a programmer and immediately saw a problem: the market structure was rigged for specialists and floor traders. Retail and institutional participants had zero visibility into real-time pricing. The spread between bid and ask was opaque by design.

Island ECN Timeline:

• Feb 1996 — Island ECN founded by Josh Levine and Jeff Citron at Datek Securities
• Jan 1997 — First trades executed; maker-taker fee model introduced
• 1999 — Crosses 10% of Nasdaq volume; ~1 million trades/day by June
• 2001 — Handles 1 in 6 Nasdaq trades; 350+ million shares/day
• Jun 2002 — Instinet acquires Island ECN for $508 million
• Late 2003 — Island + Instinet merge to form INET ECN
• Dec 2005 — Nasdaq completes acquisition of INET

Levine’s response was Island ECN, founded February 9, 1996. His explicit goal was “democratizing financial markets” through computers. Not through artificial intelligence. Not through blockchain. Through raw computational speed and radical transparency in market data.

By the end of the 1990s, Island was processing 10% of all Nasdaq volume and handling 250,000+ trades per day. By 2001, that figure climbed to 1 in 6 Nasdaq trades. This wasn’t incremental improvement. This was structural disruption of a $22 trillion market.

I’ve spent 20+ years analyzing execution systems that followed Island’s blueprint. The architectural decisions Levine made in 1996 are still visible in every matching engine I audit today. Understanding what he built—and more importantly, why it worked—reveals the foundational principles that separate stable infrastructure from expensive theater.

Why a FoxPro Database Changed Trading Forever

Here’s the correction that matters: Island ECN was not originally built in C++. It was written in Microsoft FoxPro for MS-DOS.

FoxPro was a database management system with a reliable ISAM storage engine and B*-tree indexing. It wasn’t sexy. It wasn’t cutting-edge. It was deterministic, predictable, and fast enough for the constraints Levine faced in 1996. The system later migrated to Java, but the original architecture was FoxPro running on off-the-shelf Dell PCs.

Island ECN Distributed Architecture:

Node (Dell PC)	Function	Failure Impact
PC 1	Order entry + validation	Isolated — other nodes continue
PC 2	Risk checks	Isolated — orders queue until restored
PC 3	Matching engine (FoxPro ISAM + B*-tree)	Core node — redundant backup
PC 4	Order book state updates	Isolated — matching continues
PC 5	Trade confirmation	Isolated — confirms batch on recovery
PC 6	Market data dissemination (ITCH feed)	Isolated — trading unaffected

Each node = single function on commodity hardware. No single point of failure. No mainframe.

Why does this matter? Because Levine didn’t chase the latest language or the most sophisticated compiler optimizations. He optimized for three constraints that still govern matching engine design:

1. Deterministic execution — every order processed in strict time-price priority with zero ambiguity
2. Fault tolerance — distributed across multiple commodity machines instead of a single-point-of-failure mainframe
3. Event-driven architecture — each machine performed one specific function and responded to state changes in real time

The genius wasn’t in picking FoxPro. The genius was recognizing that architecture matters infinitely more than language choice. Levine distributed the order book across multiple Dell PCs, each programmed to handle a specific task. If one machine failed, the system routed around it. Traditional exchanges were still running centralized mainframes where a single hardware failure meant market closure.

Island’s execution latency? As fast as 30 milliseconds. Traditional exchanges were measuring in seconds.

The lesson I repeatedly see firms miss: they chase microsecond optimization in language benchmarks while running monolithic architectures with catastrophic single points of failure. Levine proved in 1996 that distributed commodity hardware with deterministic logic beats centralized “enterprise” infrastructure every time.

The Maker-Taker Model: Game Theory Meets Market Microstructure

In 1997, Levine introduced the maker-taker fee structure. This wasn’t an accounting decision. This was applied game theory encoded directly into the matching engine’s economic incentives.

The mechanic:

• Makers (liquidity providers who place resting limit orders) earn a rebate per share
• Takers (liquidity consumers who execute against resting orders) pay a fee per share

Maker-Taker Fee Flow:

MAKER posts limit order
    └→ Order rests in book (adds liquidity)
        └→ TAKER executes market order against it
            ├→ Maker EARNS rebate:  $0.0020/share
            ├→ Taker PAYS fee:      $0.0030/share
            └→ ECN KEEPS spread:    $0.0010/share

The rebate incentivizes tighter spreads → more volume → more rebate opportunities → tighter spreads. A self-reinforcing flywheel.

Initially, Island charged $1 per trade flat. Within 24 months, Island’s market share grew from 3% to 13% of Nasdaq volume. Every major exchange adopted the model within five years. Nasdaq, NYSE Arca, BATS, and nearly every equity venue today uses some variant of maker-taker pricing.

Why did this work? Because Levine aligned economic incentives with liquidity provision. Tighter spreads attract more trading volume. More trading volume generates more rebate opportunities for makers. More makers competing for rebates tighten spreads further. The flywheel effect was embedded in the fee schedule itself.

I’ve audited desks that fixate on execution speed while ignoring fee optimization. They’ll spend $2 million on FPGA infrastructure to save 10 microseconds, then leave 5 basis points on the table because they’re consuming liquidity instead of providing it. Island’s maker-taker model proved that microstructure economics often matter more than raw latency.

The criticism is valid: Prof. Larry Harris has documented that maker-taker creates transparency problems, agency issues, and enables subpenny quotations that disadvantage retail participants. The model optimizes for volume and liquidity depth, not fairness. But from a market design perspective, it worked exactly as intended: it concentrated liquidity, reduced spreads, and made electronic trading the dominant execution venue.

From 3% to 10% Market Share in 24 Months

The growth numbers tell the execution story:

• June 1999: ~1 million trades/day
• January 2000: ~15 million trades/day
• 2001: 350+ million shares/day

Volume on Island doubled to 53.7 billion shares between 1999 and 2000, then increased 80% in 2001. By 2001, Island was handling 1 in 6 Nasdaq trades while traditional market makers watched order flow evaporate.

Island ECN Market Share Growth:

Year	Nasdaq Market Share	Daily Volume	Milestone
1997	~3%	—	Maker-taker model launched
1998	~6%	—	Market share doubles
1999	~10%	~1M trades/day (Jun)	Crosses 10% threshold
2000	~14%	~15M trades/day (Jan)	Volume 53.7B shares for year
2001	~17%	350M+ shares/day	1 in 6 Nasdaq trades; volume up 80% YoY

What enabled this? Three structural advantages baked into the system:

1. Real-Time Transparency Island published real-time bid/ask spreads with full depth-of-book visibility. Traditional exchanges hid this data behind specialist systems. Quantitative traders could suddenly see market microstructure inefficiencies in real time. That visibility alone was worth the routing costs.

2. Sub-100ms Execution While NYSE floor traders were hand-signaling orders, Island was executing in 30 milliseconds. Speed wasn’t the primary advantage—predictability was. Traders knew exactly when their order would hit the book and at what priority level.

3. No Information Leakage Specialists on traditional exchanges could see incoming order flow and trade ahead of it. Island’s automated matching engine had no conflicts of interest, no information asymmetry, no front-running. The algorithm was neutral.

The lesson I see firms struggling with today: they assume speed alone wins market share. Island proved that transparency, determinism, and neutrality matter more than raw execution time. I’ve seen 10-microsecond systems lose to 50-microsecond systems because the faster venue had unpredictable queue priority or opaque rebate structures.

Market share follows trust. Trust follows deterministic, transparent execution logic.

The Distributed Architecture That Survived Everything

Island’s technical resilience came from a principle that modern HFT firms routinely violate: distribute the failure surface across commodity hardware instead of concentrating it in proprietary infrastructure.

Levine built Island on off-the-shelf Dell PCs. Each machine was programmed to perform one specific function:

• Order validation
• Risk checks
• Price/time priority sorting
• Order book state updates
• Trade confirmation
• Market data dissemination

Failure Isolation in Practice:

[Order Entry] ──→ [Risk Check] ──→ [Matching Engine] ──→ [Market Data]
     │                 │                   │                    │
   Dell PC           Dell PC            Dell PC             Dell PC
     │                 │                   │                    │
  If fails:        If fails:          If fails:           If fails:
  Orders queue     Orders hold        Backup takes        Trading
  briefly          at gate            over matching       continues
     │                 │                   │                    │
     └── NO SINGLE FAILURE CASCADES TO OTHER NODES ──────────┘

Traditional exchanges: one mainframe fails → entire market halts. Island: one PC fails → system routes around it.

If one PC failed, the system routed around it. There was no single mainframe that could take down the entire exchange. This architecture was virtually fail-safe in an era when traditional exchanges had to halt trading during hardware failures.

The regulatory environment helped: Regulation ATS (Alternative Trading System) was adopted in 1998-1999, explicitly allowing electronic venues like Island to compete with traditional exchanges. Regulation NMS followed in 2005 with the Order Protection Rule, Access Rule, and Sub-Penny Rule—codifying the market structure that Island pioneered.

Modern parallel: Nasdaq completed its acquisition of INET (the merged Island/Instinet ECN) in December 2005. Island’s distributed architecture and maker-taker economics are now the backbone of Nasdaq’s equity execution platform. The Carnegie Mellon dropout’s FoxPro database became the infrastructure for a $22 trillion market.

I’ve reviewed systems running on $500,000 enterprise servers that have worse fault tolerance than Island’s 1996 Dell PC cluster. The lesson is uncomfortable: architectural decisions matter infinitely more than hardware budget. Distributed commodity infrastructure with deterministic failover beats monolithic “enterprise” systems every time.

What Island’s DNA Teaches Modern Trading Systems

Island’s architectural principles are visible in every execution venue I audit. Here’s where the DNA lives today:

1. Nasdaq (via INET Acquisition) When Nasdaq acquired INET in 2005, it inherited Island’s distributed matching engine architecture and maker-taker fee structure. Nasdaq’s current equity platform is a direct descendant of Levine’s FoxPro order book. The same time-price priority logic. The same distributed processing model.

2. NYSE Arca (via Archipelago) Archipelago entered the market in 1997 as a direct Island competitor, copying the maker-taker model. When Archipelago merged with NYSE in 2006 to form NYSE Arca, Island’s economic principles became embedded in the NYSE itself. The irony: the floor-based exchange that Island disrupted eventually adopted Island’s entire business model.

3. BATS/Cboe Dave Cummings founded BATS (“Better Alternative Trading System”) in 2005 explicitly following Island’s blueprint: electronic matching engine, maker-taker pricing, full transparency. Cboe acquired BATS in 2017. Island’s architecture now powers one of the largest equity exchanges in the U.S.

4. IEX (The Philosophical Inversion) IEX uses a 38-mile fiber coil to create a 350-microsecond speed bump, deliberately slowing down orders to prevent latency arbitrage. This is the opposite of Island’s speed focus, but it proves Levine’s core insight: market design matters more than execution speed. IEX’s success validates that participants care about fairness and predictability, not just raw latency.

Island ECN’s DNA Across Modern Venues:

Modern Venue	What They Inherited from Island	How They Got It
Nasdaq	Distributed architecture + maker-taker fees	Acquired INET (Island/Instinet merger) in 2005
NYSE Arca	Maker-taker fee model	Archipelago copied model in 1997; merged with NYSE in 2006
BATS/Cboe	Full Island blueprint (architecture + fees + transparency)	Founded 2005 explicitly following Island’s design
IEX	Inverted speed philosophy — fairness over latency	Proves Levine’s insight: market design > raw speed

The global HFT market reached $10.36 billion in 2024 and is projected to hit $16.03 billion by 2030. Modern systems require sub-100 microsecond execution, and FPGAs now outperform CPUs by 1,000x for latency-critical operations. But the core principles Levine encoded in 1996 remain unchanged: deterministic execution, distributed fault tolerance, and economic incentives aligned with liquidity provision.

One uncomfortable truth: off-exchange trading now exceeds 50% of total volume as of Q4 2024. Nasdaq itself trades less than 20% of Nasdaq-listed shares. Island democratized electronic trading so effectively that the venues it created are now being displaced by dark pools and internalization. The architectural revolution Levine started continues to fracture market structure.

Decision Framework: Evaluating Your Matching Engine Architecture

If you’re building or auditing a trading system, here’s the diagnostic checklist Island’s architecture teaches:

1. Failure Surface Distribution

• Are you running a monolithic matching engine on a single server?
• What happens when your primary execution node fails?
• Can your system route around hardware failure without manual intervention?
• Island’s Standard: Distributed across commodity hardware with automatic failover

2. Execution Determinism

• Can you guarantee time-price priority under all market conditions?
• Do queue positions change unpredictably during high-volume periods?
• Is your matching logic documented and auditable?
• Island’s Standard: Deterministic order processing with zero ambiguity

3. Economic Incentive Alignment

• Does your fee structure reward liquidity provision?
• Are you optimizing for rebate capture or paying away edge in taker fees?
• Have you modeled the spread between maker rebates and taker fees across your order flow?
• Island’s Standard: Maker-taker model that aligns incentives with liquidity depth

4. Transparency vs. Information Leakage

• Are you publishing real-time market data to participants?
• Does your order routing expose information to venues that can trade ahead of you?
• Can your counterparties see your order flow before execution?
• Island’s Standard: Full transparency with zero information asymmetry

5. Speed vs. Predictability Trade-Off

• Are you chasing microsecond latency at the expense of deterministic execution?
• Would your clients trade 10 microseconds for guaranteed queue priority?
• Are you measuring latency variance or just average latency?
• Island’s Standard: Predictable 30ms execution beats unpredictable 10ms execution

The uncomfortable question I ask CTOs: Would your current architecture have survived the volume growth Island handled in 1999-2001? Doubling volume in 12 months. Then 80% growth the following year. If your answer includes “we’d need to upgrade servers” or “we’d add headcount to monitor it,” your architecture is fundamentally different from what Levine built.

Island’s architecture scaled because it was distributed, deterministic, and economically aligned with participant behavior. Modern systems chase speed while ignoring the structural principles that actually mattered.

---

Ready to audit your execution architecture against these principles? HFT Advisory provides the architectural oversight that prevents catastrophic misalignment between your trading system design and market microstructure reality. If you’re running $500M+ daily flow and your matching engine hasn’t been forensically reviewed for fault tolerance and economic incentive alignment, we should review your roadmap.

---

Originally shared as a LinkedIn post exploring the architectural innovations of Island ECN and Josh Levine’s lasting impact on electronic trading infrastructure.