> Changes in institutional ownership may signify what you are arguing. Agreed, but we don't have access to this, so we need to use what's available. The level

> Changes in institutional ownership may signify what you are arguing. Agreed, but we don't have access to this, so we need to use what's available. The level of institutional ownership (10%) is useful because it provides approximate/rough bounds on its changes over the last 12 months. Take the limit to see why it's useful: If IO% is currently 0% (100%), we can conclude with some confidence that a protracted move from $0.5 to its current price of $7.5 is retail (institutional) driven. An IO% of 10% doesn't conclusively show that a protracted move is retail driven (for a bunch of reasons, some of which you've highlighted), but it does suggest it (especially in this case where all traded volume is recent), absent better info. > look at when ARK stopped buying and how the price fell I feel that this is a bit of curve fitting. Retail in general has been selling since January. NNDM's January blow-off was largely GME-hype related, and since then all retail favourites have been weak. Compare the NIO chart to the NNDM chart. They're completely unrelated but topped out at the identical dates and have sold off in the exact same way. This strongly suggests correlation driven by retail flows. Why else would NNDM and NIO track each other so closely since January 2021? > dilution continued. Was there recent dilution? They engaged with an underwriter at a very high offering price, but the 424B5 doesn't suggest an obligation to buy. Since the price tanked after the date of this engagement, I'd assume that no counterparties would've purchased any stock? https://www.bamsec.com/filing/121390021009721?cik=1643303 https://www.bamsec.com/filing/121390021009721?cik=1643303 > Recent activity as of March may be retail activity, but that's not what I meant by recent. I'm talking about the last 12 months. ARKK only held 5%, which leaves 95%.