I'd recommend everyone interested read the opening statements https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=111207 https://docs.house.gov/Commi

I'd recommend everyone interested read the opening statements https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=111207 https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?Event... These testimonies are interesting and short and I'd encourage everybody to skim them. (The robinhood one is longer :() Some interesting highlights to me: Everyone's starting out with "I went to high school and am a normal person and love my partner and I was an underdog" which is really striking when it's such a strong pattern. Reddit's CEO describes reddit's governance: > Reddit additionally uses a governance structure akin to a federal democracy, where the aforementioned policies and teams represent the federal government, and the communities themselves represent states. This is a weird description of what seems more like a federal dictatorship, where the aforementioned policies and teams represent the federal government (a dictatorship), and the communities themselves represent states (smaller dictatorships). > We have since analyzed the activity in WallStreetBets to determine whether bots, foreign agents, or other bad actors played a significant role. They have not. In every metric that we checked, the activity in WallStreetBets was well within normal parameters, and its moderation tools were working as expected. I'd love to know what "within normal parameters" amounts to. From Robinhood's CEO: > I want to be clear at the outset: any allegation that Robinhood acted to help hedge funds or other special interests to the detriment of our customers is absolutely false and market-distorting rhetoric. It strikes me that everyone believing (or believing that everyone else believed...) the conspiracy theory certainly hurt the GME price more than if everyone just knew that it had a relatively boring reason. When robinhood halted things and conspiracy theories multiplied and went viral, the subsequent price fall might have been at least to some degree an own goal. The virality that moved the stock up is the same virality that told everyone the game was (extra) rigged against them. From the director of financial regulation studies at the Cato institute: > The fact that GameStop traded temporarily, and perhaps still trades, above fair estimates of the company’s value is not, by itself, a reason for concern. Stock prices move in and out of alignment all the time, and markets are no strangers to bubbles. If a company is valued by the market differently than a review of its “fundamentals” suggests, it might indicate that the analysis is missing relevant information about a company’s prospects or it might indicate that the company’s stock price is due for a correction. This seems disingenuous to me in a system where "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" is an accepted truism.