4 ms·

That reddit/wsb didn't market manipulate is in no way an argument for robin hood having market manipulated. Again, it's fine to do things that cause stock pric

That reddit/wsb didn't market manipulate is in no way an argument for robin hood having market manipulated. Again, it's fine to do things that cause stock prices to move. That robin hood could have reduced their functionality further in order to affect the stock price less is not relevant. If they have some duty to go out of their way to minimise their impact on stock prices, its above and beyond regular market manipulation.

abotsis 6y ago
So when they reopened limited trading and prevented people who already had positions from acquiring more, how did that help their case that it was done because of their obligations to their clearing house? If they said “ok, everyone can purchase 5 additional shares” it’d be one thing. But they said “nobody can acquire to own more than 5 shares”. Some of those shares people owned were already settled....
- nrmitchi 6y ago
  Honestly, as someone who writes software, my first guess is that "per user rate limiting of new, unsettled individual security positions" is most likely not something that was built in to their product. It's also not something to YOLO out into production during an extreme volatility event when people are already mad at you. Adding a static check of holding was likely much more straight forward. In traditional Robinhood-style, this decision prioritized growth (allowing new users to still sign up and buy) I guess a different alternative would have been just selling as much GME until they reach the maximum they could make the obligations for, but then it probably would have been considered less "fair" (if one person could buy 1000 shares, and then no one else can buy any). You may not agree with Robinhood leadership, or Robinhood as a company (I know that I don't), but this can really be thought of as a #hugops moment where they had to figure out how to track down and address the root of these (multiple) issues in real-time. They most definitely did not come out with the "best" solution.

abotsis 6y ago

So when they reopened limited trading and prevented people who already had positions from acquiring more, how did that help their case that it was done because of their obligations to their clearing house? If they said “ok, everyone can purchase 5 additional shares” it’d be one thing. But they said “nobody can acquire to own more than 5 shares”. Some of those shares people owned were already settled....

nrmitchi 6y ago
Honestly, as someone who writes software, my first guess is that "per user rate limiting of new, unsettled individual security positions" is most likely not something that was built in to their product. It's also not something to YOLO out into production during an extreme volatility event when people are already mad at you. Adding a static check of holding was likely much more straight forward. In traditional Robinhood-style, this decision prioritized growth (allowing new users to still sign up and buy) I guess a different alternative would have been just selling as much GME until they reach the maximum they could make the obligations for, but then it probably would have been considered less "fair" (if one person could buy 1000 shares, and then no one else can buy any). You may not agree with Robinhood leadership, or Robinhood as a company (I know that I don't), but this can really be thought of as a #hugops moment where they had to figure out how to track down and address the root of these (multiple) issues in real-time. They most definitely did not come out with the "best" solution.