4 ms·
Of course he wasn't "obligated". But the guy was (1) a legitimate expert on the details of how his trading worked and (2) spoke profusely and at length about a
by newacct583 6y ago
Of course he wasn't "obligated". But the guy was (1) a legitimate expert on the details of how his trading worked and (2) spoke profusely and at length about all the other details of his investments. He wasn't silent. At all.
Yet he was silent as his investment conveniently went through the roof, driven by a huge misunderstanding propagated within the very community where he did almost all his profuse speaking.
And that doesn't seem suspicious to you? Look, I'm not the SEC. I can't subpoena his trade history or social media logs. But there is an SEC, and they can, and we have to believe they're looking into this.
Basically: sure, he might be totally innocent and just a lucky beneficiary of a crazy bubble. I'm just saying it's more likely that he was executing a pump and dump.
- Judgmentality 6y agoYou should really go look at his YouTube, Twitter, and reddit history - because what you're saying is wrong.
- sokoloff 6y agoAn alternative point of view is that he was a genuine (relatively) long-term believer in Gamestop and he steered clear of all conversations where nonsense was being spouted. I don't think he has any obligation to engage there and I suspect the courts will find the same.
- newacct583 6y agoYou're saying that if you were an SEC prosecutor looking at these public facts, you wouldn't be interesting in investigating? Really? Again: I admit that the innocent explanation is possible. I just don't think, given the circumstances, that it seems likely.
- sokoloff 6y agoWith an absence of evidence of wrongdoing, I assume innocence by default. Perhaps this is where we differ. By all means, the SEC will look into this (as they should), but I’d wager that DFV is not going to be found guilty.