This is an emotively charged post, but it's factually wrong, and basically a conspiracy theory. Over 100% short interest doesn't imply anyone broke the law. h

This is an emotively charged post, but it's factually wrong, and basically a conspiracy theory. Over 100% short interest doesn't imply anyone broke the law. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-10-19/matt-levine-s-money-stuff-gamestop-baffles-the-sec-too https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-10-19/matt-l... > Short interest can exceed 100%—as it did with GME—when the same shares are lent multiple times by successive purchasers https://www.reuters.com/article/us-retail-trading-shortselling-explainer/explainer-how-were-more-than-100-of-gamestops-shares-shorted-idUSKBN2AI2DD https://www.reuters.com/article/us-retail-trading-shortselli... > HOW CAN MORE THAN 100% OF A COMPANY’S SHARES BE SHORTED? > Once the short seller borrows the shares from the lender and then sells them back into the market, the new owner of the shares is free to lend them out, just as the previous owner did, and have no idea they are on the other side of a short sale. Also, the reason the buttons were taken off the app, was because RH were having to post extra collateral due to volatiltiy. RH had to draw down extra loans to pay the collateral. For one broker, the collateral was 100%. The memeing was not sustainable for RH. There was no conspiracy. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-28/robinhood-is-said-to-draw-on-credit-lines-from-banks-amid-tumult?sref=gni836kR https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-28/robinhood... https://www.wsj.com/articles/gamestop-trading-restrictions-blamed-on-wall-streets-clearing-firm-by-online-broker-11611867105?mod=mhp https://www.wsj.com/articles/gamestop-trading-restrictions-b...