Me too, because Matt Levine's take is usually that insider trading requires a duty to shareholders[1], not just non-public information. From that pov it sounds

Me too, because Matt Levine's take is usually that insider trading requires a duty to shareholders[1], not just non-public information. From that pov it sounds like this wouldn't be insider trading. Correct me if I misunderstood his normal position. [1] he also usually adds the explanation that insider trading is about theft, not fairness. Meaning that if you obtained information which is not public by means of your own research, that would not be insider trading, because you have no duty to the shareholders.