The motivation is one thing, the end result is that it created a slanted playing field where one party was blocked from buying, but not selling, and the other p

The motivation is one thing, the end result is that it created a slanted playing field where one party was blocked from buying, but not selling, and the other party (the losing short side) could do either unrestricted. Not only that, but it was pre emptive. We can talk all day about GME, but the handful of other names like BB hadn't even reached that point. There was simply a risk of a short squeeze and we slanted the field here, too, enough time for the losing side to mitigate their risk. Conspiracy or no, the end result is so far from your day trading 25K minimum example. Your example is a rule that already existed going in, rather than a rule that changed temporarily to convenience one side for a day.