Even though the author posits that >"At any given point in time more than 100 emerging companies are under attack as described above. [...] The success rate fo

Even though the author posits that >"At any given point in time more than 100 emerging companies are under attack as described above. [...] The success rate for short attacks is over ninety percent" he/she can only find two examples (Global Link and TASER), which is a bit odd. In any case, there is a connection to the current narrative of "short sellers are evil". But "the shorts" or "they" is one of these "us vs them" constructs that does not exist in any meaningful way. Even worse, there is a common notion on r/WSB that "the shorts" are also "the suits" and there will be some rough awakening when folks find out that Wall St made more money on $GME than Main St, and that is on the long side, before any dip in share price! By the way, this awakening might never happen and there is a scenario where we will never find out who traded what on $GME, because transparent transaction data is not publicly available. Thinking back about the 2010 flash crash [1] we still don't know with certainty what exactly happened. Grant Williams did a podcast about the current events [2] and I can only recommend it (also check out his Endgame series). There certainly are unethical sellers of stock (see e.g. Jim Cramer video where he talks about manipulation) but I have yet to see convincing evidence that unethical or fraudulent behaviour is more common on the short than long side. There was a recent poll on Fintwit to name examples where "short attacks" hurt companies, and the paucity of meaningful examples further confirmed the above point (can't find reference due to crappy Twitter search). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_flash_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_flash_crash [2] https://ttmygh.podbean.com/e/gwp_003/ https://ttmygh.podbean.com/e/gwp_003/