valuearb

33 ms·

331.
by valuearb 6y ago
No his point is to stop playing games anyone can play (including the console maker who has a tremendous incentive to be the best at the game), and build a business with a sustainable competitive advantage. I’ve built an entire business arou
332.
by valuearb 6y ago
It’s unlikely many users got scammed by this. So most of the few that do are likely complaining and in the ocean of incoming complaints Apple will eventually see this and ban the developers.
333.
by valuearb 6y ago
Apple doesn’t benefit from scam apps, the 30% doesn’t remotely make up for the brand damage. And in this case it’s unlikely the scammers are making more than a few hundred a month.
334.
by valuearb 6y ago
You don’t get paid for nearly 60 days so if someone reports you all the work you did for your scamming is for naught.
335.
by valuearb 6y ago
I guarantee this app went through review and that none of the scam screens appeared then.
336.
by valuearb 6y ago
The only way scams like this can be stopped is if Apple review downloads and opens apps after they’ve been approved and placed on the store. And even that is problematic, fo you think these scam screens appear for users in Cupertino?
337.
by valuearb 6y ago
App Review is hard. Apple does a better job at it than Google, so imagine what is happening on the play store.
338.
by valuearb 6y ago
Or perhaps the app worked entirely differently during review?
339.
by valuearb 6y ago
It tests every app, including this one. Think about what really happened here. Edit: Apparently my downvoters can’t think about what really happened here so I’ll explain it. In App Review this app worked fine. Oh, the keyboard was likely la
340.
by valuearb 6y ago
And this is just an example of how hard it is to do well, when determined scammers even scam the review process. If this happens on iOS, what do you think happens on Google play?
341.
by valuearb 6y ago
Apparently developers can develop more than one kind of app.
342.
by valuearb 6y ago
The scammers scammed App Review, it’s not hard to do or understand. What the reviewers saw isn’t what customers see.
343.
by valuearb 6y ago
No, the reviewers never see the scam screens. Once approved the scammers change a setting in the cloud and the app starts opening in scam mode.
344.
by valuearb 6y ago
The app was working, during review. Then once approved its behavior changed and the scam started. This is trivial to implement and done by many developers.
345.
by valuearb 6y ago
Democratic government or military junta, what’s the difference? Said the victims of the Rohingya genocide.
346.
by valuearb 6y ago
Why would they think about helping “some buddies” first when their house was on fire and about to collapse? Don’t you realize how extreme it was for them to have to borrow $1B in a single day?
347.
by valuearb 6y ago
Selling reduces their collateral requirements, purchases increase it. There was no reason to restrict sakes, in fact it would have hurt them worse.
348.
by valuearb 6y ago
If you don’t understand how the DTCC works, why are you trying to correct others?
349.
by valuearb 6y ago
But the idea they could go months or years without getting access to the stocks in their account isn’t. And it’s small consolation to get all your GME shares back only when it’s trading back at $20.
350.
by valuearb 6y ago
I doubt E-Trade has access to much of Morgan Stanley’s liquidity, that would be absurd. Even they have limitations their parent enforces, and it would be really inefficient to operate with a massive surplus of collateral. But again I said t
351.
by valuearb 6y ago
Robinhoods actions were all about saving themselves, and the little guys, ie their customers. Had nothing to do with benefiting anyone else, because it didn’t benefit anyone else.
352.
by valuearb 6y ago
They acted in the only way that saved themselves and their customers from a painful bankruptcy. It did nothing to boost Wall Street at all. And has zip to do with “corruption”.
353.
by valuearb 6y ago
WeBull may have had a less dangerous solvency issue. Either way it’s Monday morning quarterbacking to say RH could have been blunt. They may have been within hours of bankruptcy.
354.
by valuearb 6y ago
If he had said that Robinhood put those restrictions in place because of a liquidity crisis, he just lost every Robinhood customer all their money. That’s because Robinhood gets forced to increase collateral with everyone they do business w
355.
by valuearb 6y ago
Yes “naked shorting” is a technical failure that hasn’t been a real problem in forever, but us frequently cited by shady CEOs as cover for why their stock price fell. Patrick Byrnes is one famous example. From this very article: “ Alan Spor
356.
by valuearb 6y ago
Sure but if the the statement gets too close to admitting a liquidity crisis the market will close their doors the next day.
357.
by valuearb 6y ago
Hedge funds didn’t bury Robinhood under 100,000 bad reviews. Both the shorts and longs have a vested interest in keeping Robinhood afloat, but the WSB doesn’t seem to realize that.
358.
by valuearb 6y ago
You are correct. But an emergency loan indicates increased risk of insolvency. Robinhood isn’t going to borrow money they don’t need, and raise their interest costs. Likely the loans were preexisting credit lines, so they were obligated to
359.
by valuearb 6y ago
No, the issue is that Robinhood is a startup brokerage with likely very few actual assets. Go try to get a $2M short term loan using a $1M home as collateral. You will get laughed out of every bank in the country. Now try to get investors t
360.
by valuearb 6y ago
Most retail investors are just like WSB members, clueless newbs who know nothing about how the market works and it doesn’t take many to try the dumbest Hail Marys possible. Occams razor tells you it’s not market manipulation because Robinho

More ›