5 ms·
This is so on point. To me, and many others active somewhere on the "regulated finance" spectrum, the way crypto kept going on and on how awesome "deregulation
by ckastner 5y ago
This is so on point.
To me, and many others active somewhere on the "regulated finance" spectrum, the way crypto kept going on and on how awesome "deregulation" is from a consumer standpoint was tragically ironic. The vast majority of regulation is there to protect market participants.
- TruthIsHeresy 5y ago>The vast majority of regulation is there to protect market participants. Anyone involved with GME knows this isn’t true.
- kevingadd 5y agoThe vast majority of the nasty stuff that happened around GME was not the work of regulators trying to hurt ordinary investors.
- puppyprogram 5y agoThe vast majority of regulation is there to protect CERTAIN market participants.
- im3w1l 5y agoI actually think the opposite. Causing a short squeeze is market manipulation. Regulatory agencies let it happen anyway because it was done by random nobodies.
- reedjosh 5y agoIf a short squeeze happens that by definition means the shorts were over zealous. If a market allows shorts it should allow a squeeze as a mechanism of balance.
- jcranberry 5y agoThe market allows short squeezes. SEC too. What the SEC doesn't allow is the deliberate triggering of short squeezes.
- formerkrogemp 5y agoI'll believe their not allowing it when their soft gums and limp regulations have teeth again. Fines are a cost of doing business in many cases, unfortunately.
- ckastner 5y ago> Anyone involved with GME knows this isn’t true. People involved with GME used to refer themselves as the "Apes", and reading their main forum on /r/wallstreetbets back then, that would be a pretty accurate characterization of what they "know".