6 ms·

To be honest, it doesn't really matter. This isn't about whether Robinhood technically must or must not do what they're doing, but that the system is setup in s

To be honest, it doesn't really matter. This isn't about whether Robinhood technically must or must not do what they're doing, but that the system is setup in such a way that all these claims of "supporting the people" are fundamentally 100% bullshit. Robinhood tanked their credibility by letting the mask slip and people are on that like hyenas because of the irony. Really though, the focus on them is a distraction from the much larger slip by the entire financial system.

cced 6y ago
> Really though, the focus on them is a distraction from the much larger slip by the entire financial system. Exactly. I also watched the recent CNBC interview with Chamath Palihapitiya [1]. I would like to it, but CNBC keeps taking it down. In any case, the host really doesn’t seem like he’s there to « get to the bottom of things or to understand » but to push the idea that the problem is anything other than the preconditions that led up to this. Chamath was spot on. [1]: CNBC Chamath Palihapitiya Interview January 27th, 2021
- yhoneycomb 6y ago
  This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgYZk9Mc804 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgYZk9Mc804
- mateuszf 6y ago
  I have found the whole interview on Reddit - https://vimeo.com/505445024 https://vimeo.com/505445024
kryogen1c 6y ago
> these claims of "supporting the people" is fundamentally 100% bullshit. what a world where a free platform takes an action to stay solvent and in business and its a bullshit claim that theyre helping their customers. i guess they shouldve done the more helpful thing and gone bankrupt, illegally allowing trades they cant cover.
- prohobo 6y ago
  They were dismissive enough of retailers that it didn't even enter their feeble minds that they might need to be able to cover the costs of a real market manipulation, the kind that institutions do all the time without having these kinds of problems. They were always working for their hedge fund investors. They just got a hard slap to the face by the people they claimed to be working for. And honestly, I'm not very impressed by anyone who would defend them.
  - kryogen1c 6y ago
    > They just got a hard slap to the face by the people they claimed to be working for. youre saying WSB making a stock so volatile that a brokerage cant afford to keep it on its books is a moral victory? what morals are you basing this on? > And honestly, I'm not very impressed by anyone who would defend them. we're commenting on an article about how RH had to borrow billions to stay afloat AFTER they already took action to minimize their exposure. they couldve gone under, and were probably insolvent. im not exactly doing mental gymnastics here.
    - zekrioca 6y ago
      > youre saying WSB making a stock so volatile that a brokerage cant afford to keep it on its books is a moral victory? what morals are you basing this on? The person has already answered it: >> the kind that institutions do all the time without having these kinds of problems.
- Kaze404 6y ago
  What a world where people are more concerned about a single company going under than the fact that the working class is finally doing something against the rigged capitalist system.
  - kryogen1c 6y ago
    actually im glad you said this. this is the core problem with this WSB/RH/GME event. a certain percentage of people in WSB only want to light a pile of their money on fire for the sole purpose of bankrupting some hedge funds. they expect no returns and only want to cause pain to people with more money than them that they dont like. another percentage of people (i think this group is much, much larger than the first) think bankrupting the short positions is gonna make them huge returns. they think theyre all david collectively fighting a goliath as the proletariat rises up. most of these people are sorely mistaken and will lose everything, but some will make money. the RH trade halt (EDIT: only buying was halted, a "trade halt" technically means both) is allowing the shorts to unwind more gracefully, making the first group of people angry. theyre not getting their witchburning, or public execution, or lynching - however you want to frame it. the problem is the second group of people think theyre being defrauded out of huge returns by an artificial exit from the short squeeze. these people are wrong to begin with. most of them were never going to make huge returns. even if they successfully bankrupted the shorts, most of them are left holding stock they bought for $100, $200, $300, or $400 a share (WSB was memeing share price was gonna go into the thousands) that is worth <$90. those people were always going to lose, they just didnt know it. but now they have a scape goat, even though they were on the wrong side of the trade to begin with.
MrMan 6y ago
What much larger slip ? Risk management practices?
getlawgdon 6y ago
"Retail trading" is not even remotely close to "the entire financial system." And it's that kind of casual but enormous misunderstanding that leads to casual, ignorant participation I. retail trading itself.

cced 6y ago

> Really though, the focus on them is a distraction from the much larger slip by the entire financial system. Exactly. I also watched the recent CNBC interview with Chamath Palihapitiya [1]. I would like to it, but CNBC keeps taking it down. In any case, the host really doesn’t seem like he’s there to « get to the bottom of things or to understand » but to push the idea that the problem is anything other than the preconditions that led up to this. Chamath was spot on. [1]: CNBC Chamath Palihapitiya Interview January 27th, 2021

yhoneycomb 6y ago
This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgYZk9Mc804 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgYZk9Mc804
mateuszf 6y ago
I have found the whole interview on Reddit - https://vimeo.com/505445024 https://vimeo.com/505445024

kryogen1c 6y ago

> these claims of "supporting the people" is fundamentally 100% bullshit. what a world where a free platform takes an action to stay solvent and in business and its a bullshit claim that theyre helping their customers. i guess they shouldve done the more helpful thing and gone bankrupt, illegally allowing trades they cant cover.

prohobo 6y ago
They were dismissive enough of retailers that it didn't even enter their feeble minds that they might need to be able to cover the costs of a real market manipulation, the kind that institutions do all the time without having these kinds of problems. They were always working for their hedge fund investors. They just got a hard slap to the face by the people they claimed to be working for. And honestly, I'm not very impressed by anyone who would defend them.
- kryogen1c 6y ago
  > They just got a hard slap to the face by the people they claimed to be working for. youre saying WSB making a stock so volatile that a brokerage cant afford to keep it on its books is a moral victory? what morals are you basing this on? > And honestly, I'm not very impressed by anyone who would defend them. we're commenting on an article about how RH had to borrow billions to stay afloat AFTER they already took action to minimize their exposure. they couldve gone under, and were probably insolvent. im not exactly doing mental gymnastics here.
  - zekrioca 6y ago
    > youre saying WSB making a stock so volatile that a brokerage cant afford to keep it on its books is a moral victory? what morals are you basing this on? The person has already answered it: >> the kind that institutions do all the time without having these kinds of problems.
Kaze404 6y ago
What a world where people are more concerned about a single company going under than the fact that the working class is finally doing something against the rigged capitalist system.
- kryogen1c 6y ago
  actually im glad you said this. this is the core problem with this WSB/RH/GME event. a certain percentage of people in WSB only want to light a pile of their money on fire for the sole purpose of bankrupting some hedge funds. they expect no returns and only want to cause pain to people with more money than them that they dont like. another percentage of people (i think this group is much, much larger than the first) think bankrupting the short positions is gonna make them huge returns. they think theyre all david collectively fighting a goliath as the proletariat rises up. most of these people are sorely mistaken and will lose everything, but some will make money. the RH trade halt (EDIT: only buying was halted, a "trade halt" technically means both) is allowing the shorts to unwind more gracefully, making the first group of people angry. theyre not getting their witchburning, or public execution, or lynching - however you want to frame it. the problem is the second group of people think theyre being defrauded out of huge returns by an artificial exit from the short squeeze. these people are wrong to begin with. most of them were never going to make huge returns. even if they successfully bankrupted the shorts, most of them are left holding stock they bought for $100, $200, $300, or $400 a share (WSB was memeing share price was gonna go into the thousands) that is worth <$90. those people were always going to lose, they just didnt know it. but now they have a scape goat, even though they were on the wrong side of the trade to begin with.

MrMan 6y ago

What much larger slip ? Risk management practices?

getlawgdon 6y ago

"Retail trading" is not even remotely close to "the entire financial system." And it's that kind of casual but enormous misunderstanding that leads to casual, ignorant participation I. retail trading itself.