> Can anyone legitimately make the claim that the massive drop in value that cut off the price rise at the knees and allowed the worst short positions to cover

> Can anyone legitimately make the claim that the massive drop in value that cut off the price rise at the knees and allowed the worst short positions to cover their losses sub-$200 didn't materially harm the users? Yes, because you'd have to prove that Robinhood volume alone caused that drop in price. Robinhood isn't that big, and GME volume was crazy on Thursday. It's equally likely (and equally impossible to prove) that Robinhood saved their users money by preventing them from investing in a stock that was already up 500% and clearly overvalued relative to its fundamentals. This is the part that gets me about this: even now, after the mania has passed, everyone still thinks that GME was somehow a "sure thing" investment driven by a clearly incorrect understanding of how short trading works. And even now, after the magical short call rapture that was supposed to have come on Friday never materialized, people still want to believe that it would have kept going up and up and up. Guys, it wouldn't. It's a bubble. They pop. Everyone trying to buy at the peak was making a terrible investment decision.