4 ms·

> Assuming Robinhood's story was accurate There have been several Congressional Hearings since January’s drama, and something definitely doesn’t add up. Robin

by jw1224 5y ago

> Assuming Robinhood's story was accurate There have been several Congressional Hearings since January’s drama, and something definitely doesn’t add up. Robinhood’s CEO stated, under oath, that they switched off buys of GME following discussions with the DTCC. In a later hearing, the head of the DTCC stated — again, under oath and on the record — that Robinhood’s decision was entirely their own, and they had never spoken with Robinhood about it. Someone is lying. I would urge anyone interested in this (ongoing) saga to read this excellent investigative journalism piece here: https://prospect.org/power/how-the-gamestop-hustle-worked/ https://prospect.org/power/how-the-gamestop-hustle-worked/

nrmitchi 5y ago
> Someone is lying. Or, both people are stating the story from their side, and there is context missing. Robinhood: "We switch off after discussions with the DTCC [about increased reserve requirements which we could not meet]" DTCC: "It was entirely their decision, we never spoke to them about [the explicit actions they would have to take. It's definitely a coincidence that most other brokers did the exact same thing]"
- duxup 5y ago
  I agree. I don't think the description necessarily means someone is lying.
- jw1224 5y ago
  It’s clearly ambiguous. Retail investors were screwed over by someone, and there are thousands of people still following the situation, demanding answers. Take a read of that article I linked, it gives an excellent and impartial summary of many of the conflicts of interests affecting all parties involved. It also brings up numerous issues I never see discussed here, given most people are only aware of the “mainstream narrative” — there is much more evidence being uncovered than most people are aware of.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
    > Retail investors were screwed over by someone That doesn't seem clear. Possible, but not for sure. Too much of this reads like hardcore conspiracy theorists, but maybe that's just biasing me against the legit bits.
    - nrmitchi 5y ago
      My suspicion, which I don't have data to support, is that retail investors where largely screwed over by other retail investors.
      - JustinAiken 5y ago
        Other retail investors weren't the ones that disabled the buy button. Of course artificially removing all demand is going to tank the price. Retail got screwed, and it wasn't by retail.
        tedunangst 5y ago
        They disabled the buy button when GME was over 400. But now the buy button is back and you can get twice as many shares for the same money. Sounds like a bargain!
        jw1224 5y ago
        The price was going up by $10s of dollars per minute in January. It was a short squeeze of unprecedented scale — the first widespread opportunity for wealth redistribution of its kind, thanks largely to social media. Where “Occupy Wall Street” failed, “Liquidate Wall Street” was winning. The hedge funds blatantly rigged the public trading system to avoid bankruptcy. I can’t believe so many people still defend them.
atatatat 5y ago
On and off record discussions are two totally different things! And that's exactly why ALL financial instruments & systems should operate publicly, transparently.
pgwhalen 5y ago
These stories are not conflicting at all, in fact they complement each other very well.

by jw1224 5y ago

nrmitchi 5y ago

> Someone is lying. Or, both people are stating the story from their side, and there is context missing. Robinhood: "We switch off after discussions with the DTCC [about increased reserve requirements which we could not meet]" DTCC: "It was entirely their decision, we never spoke to them about [the explicit actions they would have to take. It's definitely a coincidence that most other brokers did the exact same thing]"

duxup 5y ago
I agree. I don't think the description necessarily means someone is lying.
jw1224 5y ago
It’s clearly ambiguous. Retail investors were screwed over by someone, and there are thousands of people still following the situation, demanding answers. Take a read of that article I linked, it gives an excellent and impartial summary of many of the conflicts of interests affecting all parties involved. It also brings up numerous issues I never see discussed here, given most people are only aware of the “mainstream narrative” — there is much more evidence being uncovered than most people are aware of.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
  > Retail investors were screwed over by someone That doesn't seem clear. Possible, but not for sure. Too much of this reads like hardcore conspiracy theorists, but maybe that's just biasing me against the legit bits.
  - nrmitchi 5y ago
    My suspicion, which I don't have data to support, is that retail investors where largely screwed over by other retail investors.
    - JustinAiken 5y ago
      Other retail investors weren't the ones that disabled the buy button. Of course artificially removing all demand is going to tank the price. Retail got screwed, and it wasn't by retail.
      - tedunangst 5y ago
        They disabled the buy button when GME was over 400. But now the buy button is back and you can get twice as many shares for the same money. Sounds like a bargain!
        jw1224 5y ago
        The price was going up by $10s of dollars per minute in January. It was a short squeeze of unprecedented scale — the first widespread opportunity for wealth redistribution of its kind, thanks largely to social media. Where “Occupy Wall Street” failed, “Liquidate Wall Street” was winning. The hedge funds blatantly rigged the public trading system to avoid bankruptcy. I can’t believe so many people still defend them.

atatatat 5y ago

On and off record discussions are two totally different things! And that's exactly why ALL financial instruments & systems should operate publicly, transparently.

pgwhalen 5y ago

These stories are not conflicting at all, in fact they complement each other very well.