Having disproportionate influence in the market isn't illegal. Never was, never is, it wasn't the intent of Congress, wasn't an interpretation ever considered b

Having disproportionate influence in the market isn't illegal. Never was, never is, it wasn't the intent of Congress, wasn't an interpretation ever considered by the SEC, and nobody in the courts care. In fact, the courts typically find the SEC's interpretation of 'insider trading' to be WAY too broad. So this Hollywood interpretation needs to go. Its only insider trading if you trade on material non-public information ABOUT SECURITIES (but if we're being honest, only equities and equities derivatives, corporate bonds are supposedly covered but no-one cares enough) where you have a fiduciary duty to not tell, such as by being employed with the company or in a nondisclosure agreement. You also create liability if you have a fiduciary duty not to tell, and you tell and that person or someone in that chain or persons trades. If you: - don't have a fiduciary duty not to tell, and you have material non-public information, you can trade or tell people who then trade. - don't have a fiduciary duty not to tell, and you have baseless non-public information, you can trade or tell people who then trade. It doesn't matter if you KNOW that your baseless information is going to move the markets. To avoid liability from individuals - this is distinct from liability from the regulators - all you do is put a disclaimer at the bottom of your post. The PSLRA of 1995 streamlined this due to frivolous lawsuits. - and last but not least, if you aren't trading securities then there is no prohibition of insider trading. there is no regulator that polices trading ahead of information in non-securities markets, there is no statute, there is no interest in Congress which assumes they could even make that constitutional at all, since there is no voluntary fiduciary duty role people could get themselves into.