Reddit Trolls Wall St. Hedge Funds, Buying Up GameStop Stock

[TheTexan]

If I weren't an anarchist, I couldn't even say those invaders were doing anything wrong, as I would concede that their might makes them right.

Might does make right. Always has, always will.

If you want anarchy to succeed, you will need to adapt that fact of life into your ideology. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Invisible Man]

And I suppose you support massive daytime shoplifting and looting of stores too. After all, if damage to their reputations isn't a deterrent, then laws aren’t a deterrent either.

No.

And I have no problem with laws. I just have a problem with make believe laws that one day don't exist and then the next day do exist because some politicians dreamed them up and voted on them.

[Invisible Man]

Might does make right. Always has, always will.

If you want anarchy to succeed, you will need to adapt that fact of life into your ideology. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Like I said in the post you're quoting, anarchy, as I see it, is not a goal to pursue such that something can be achieved that I could call a success. I'm not sure what anarchy succeeding is supposed to mean. But whatever that is, it's not something I'm striving after or hoping for.

But no, you are wrong. Might has never made right. Might does make success. But history is full of examples of success by way of doing wrong.

And if might does make right, then why not just join up with whoever is the mightiest, regardless of their cause? Then you'll always be on the right side. If you're worried that the extreme left is on a winning trajectory to take over America and crush its enemies, then rather than worry about it, just join them and be one of the crushers instead of the crushed. You will be a winner, and you will stand faultless.

If you see a reason not to do that, then it's because you know that might does not make right.

There exists an objective, timeless, universal moral law that doesn't change with our opinions, legislations, social mores, or success in violating it. We all know this inherently. We are incapable of not knowing it, and we prove this constantly in ways that could be pointed out if necessary. But we also have a tendency to suppress our knowledge of this law in order to excuse violations of it.

I don't hold out any hope of ever seeing a world without any theft in it. But that won't stop me from being able to say that theft is wrong and that less theft is better than more theft, even if zero theft is not an option on the table. Nor does the fact that people succeed at theft and enjoy material benefits from it make it right.

[TheTexan]

There exists an objective, timeless, universal moral law that doesn't change with our opinions, legislations, social mores, or success in violating it. We all know this inherently. We are incapable of not knowing it, and we prove this constantly in ways that could be pointed out if necessary. But we also have a tendency to suppress our knowledge of this law in order to excuse violations of it.

I don't think there is such a thing as a set of universal moral laws that can be applied to everybody.

Besides perhaps the right of secession.

Upholding the right of secession means that both parties in an arrangement must make good faith efforts to allow the other to equitably separate. (e.g., splitting assets in a divorce). It also means that there is no such thing as a contract without an exit clause (implicit or explicit).

All other laws, "thou shall not steal", "thou shall not kill" are not even universal. There are a great many philosophers that believe that theft has many justifications. Even murder can be justified in some ethical contexts.

The right of secession, when properly upheld, allows an individual to choose what society (and thus, what set of ethics) that the person belongs to.

The degree to which anarchy is "achieved", can be measured directly by how much the right of secession, is upheld.

[Invisible Man]

I don't think there is such a thing as a set of universal moral laws that can be applied to everybody.

Besides perhaps the right of secession.

I don't think this is possible. If you really believe that the right of secession is a universal moral law that can be applied to everybody, then it can't just stand on its own. It must have a foundation in a coherent moral framework that exists.

All other laws, "thou shall not steal", "thou shall not kill" are not even universal. There are a great many philosophers that believe that theft has many justifications. Even murder can be justified in some ethical contexts.

That's a great segue into some examples of exactly what I said: We are incapable of not knowing that a universal, timeless, objective moral law exists, and we prove this constantly in ways that could be pointed out if necessary. Those philosophers you mention by virtue of the very arguments you allude to are showing that they recognize the existence of a universal, timeless, and objective moral law, which provides the justifications for those exceptions to "thou shalt not steal," etc. We could debate whether their arguments are right or wrong in each instance. But debating those specific claims would be beside the point, because the very debate itself would proceed on the basis of the assumption that such questions can be answered at all, which presupposes the existence of a standard against which the claims can be judged. And that standard is the thing that you're claiming doesn't exist.

As an analogy, the fact that Newton's Laws of Motion can be violated under certain circumstances doesn't mean that universal laws of physics don't exist at all. It only means that whatever those universal laws of physics are, they're something other than Newton's Laws. Newton's Laws are special cases of more general laws that serve us well practically as approximations of those general laws that apply as well as most people could ever want to any motion we are capable of experiencing. And the ways that today's best physicists may give expression to those more general laws may also prove to have exceptions, and themselves be special cases of a more universal set of physical laws out there that we haven't attained knowledge of yet. But even if we don't know with perfect exactness what the laws of physics are, we know that they exist, and we know good approximations of them.

[Madison320]

I don't see any reason why a stateless island is any less able to have a collective force to defend itself than an island with a state. The market proves itself more than capable of providing collective services all the time.

How would that work? Who would pay for the collective defense? Who would decide when and how to use it?

I think the logical mistake anarchists make is that you can have a free market with force. You can't shop around for a "protection agency", they pick you, you don't pick them.

I would argue that there's no such thing as "no state". Some group or person is ALWAYS going to have the most force in a given area and they will be making the rules and doing the enforcing. Even in in the cave man days I'm sure there was Grog, the biggest baddest caveman that everyone else took orders from.

[TheTexan]

I don't think this is possible. If you really believe this, the right of secession is a universal moral law that can be applied to everybody, then it can't just stand on its own. It must have a foundation in a coherent moral framework that exists.

Why can it not stand on its own? Seems pretty stand-alone to me. It's the fundamental basis of all other rights.

That's a great segue into some examples of exactly what I said: We are incapable of not knowing that a universal, timeless, objective moral law exists, and we prove this constantly in ways that could be pointed out if necessary. Those philosophers you mention by virtue of the very arguments you allude to are showing that they recognize the existence of a universal, timeless, and objective moral law, which provides the justifications for those exceptions to "thou shalt not steal," etc. We could debate whether their arguments are right or wrong in each instance. But debating those specific claims would be beside the point, because the very debate itself would proceed on the basis of the assumption that such questions can be answered at all, which presupposes the existence of a standard against which the claims can be judged. And that standard is the thing that you're claiming doesn't exist.

The age-old question of whether ethics is absolute or subjective. There is no way to prove it either way. Suffice it to say that I fall on the "subjective" side of the argument.

The idea that there is an "absolute" set of ethics just seems entirely distasteful to me, as it reeks of authoritarianism. "My ethics are better than your ethics!"

[Invisible Man]

How would that work? Who would pay for the collective defense? Who would decide when and how to use it?

There you go again.

As I said in my earlier post, gambit declined. There are countless ways it could work. The fact that states do it proves it can work, and there's nothing a state can do that the market couldn't do without a state. But whatever prediction I might make about how it would work would not be what would actually happen. The way that the market would provide that it actually would work would be better than anything anyone could predict, which is why central planning is always less efficient than the free market.

Take any other so-called "public good" you want, as an analogy, whether it be post offices, lighthouses, or any other kind of infrastructure. In any of these cases you'll see their defenders asking the exact same questions you just did about how it would work if the government didn't do it. And in all of those examples (as well as the example of military by the way), you'll find plenty of actual cases in history where they actually did exist privately and work without being under the purview of any state.

I would argue that there's no such thing as "no state". Some group or person is ALWAYS going to have the most force in a given area and they will be making the rules and doing the enforcing. Even in in the cave man days I'm sure there was Grog, the biggest baddest caveman that everyone else took orders from.

OK. On this point I actually agree (aside from the quibble that I don't think there was ever such a thing as cave man days), and I've said similar things before. I think that usually people have an unspecified line that they draw somewhere delineating when something is big enough to count as a state, and such a line is bound to be arbitrary and subjective. At the end of the day, every mugger in a dark alley is, at that moment in time and in that limited geographical area, no different than a state except in size.

However, in setting that point aside for the sake of this discussion, I was actually going along with the terms you had set. If you want to make this point, then you can no longer say that the island you were talking about had anarchy either. It had a state just like everywhere else does.

[Madison320]

There you go again.

As I said in my earlier post, gambit declined. There are countless ways it could work. The fact that states do it proves it can work, and there's nothing a state can do that the market couldn't do without a state. But whatever prediction I might make about how it would work would not be what would actually happen. The way that the market would provide that it actually would work would be better than anything anyone could predict, which is why central planning is always less efficient than the free market.

If I was asked "how would the market make a better pencil?" I wouldn't know how the process would be improved but I would answer businesses would compete with each other trying to make the best pencil for their customers at the lowest cost.

I'm not asking how the best defense would be provided, I'm asking how would it be paid for and who would run it. The fact that your answer is "the market will magically make it happen" is just a way of avoiding the question. The reason you have to avoid the question is that the free market does not function with the use of force.

I'll ask again "who will pay for the defense and who will run it"? Just give me a possible scenario.

[fatjohn]

Yet, John McAfee is the financial criminal, for posting on Twitter about crypto-currency.

He claimed he knew about IRS corruption in his extradition hearing (but the translator did not translate that)
McAfee had many enemies.
He got Whackd, plain and simple.
He expected this could be his probable end and made a crypto called WHACKD to bring attention to Epstein's death.
I bought some of the token, figure if the token blows up, the MSM will have to talk about McAfee and the possibility of a government hit.

[Krugminator2]

GME and AMC getting a little heavy. Small short in both. If GME breaks the 50 day could be start of 70 dollar plus drop.

GME down $55. AMC down 44%.

Sometimes I get it right.

[devil21]

GME down $55. AMC down 44%.

Sometimes I get it right.

As always with shorting, don't get greedy. The curious thing is that buying is outpacing selling by 3+ to 1 yet price keeps dropping slowly. Level 2 shows that 1 share orders are constantly being wash-traded back and forth to slowly lower the price. You were right but don't get greedy. This same algo cycle repeats on GME every ~90 days but the bottom is higher each cycle.

[Krugminator2]

As always with shorting, don't get greedy. The curious thing is that buying is outpacing selling by 3+ to 1 yet price keeps dropping slowly. Level 2 shows that 1 share orders are constantly being wash-traded back and forth to slowly lower the price. You were right but don't get greedy. This same algo cycle repeats on GME every ~90 days but the bottom is higher each cycle.

I covered AMC pre market last week at 40ish and didn't reshort. I covered GME around 178. and only got a small reshort at 190. Covered after hours yesterday around 154.

[devil21]

I like the stock at this price. Feels like the on-sale price will end in a couple weeks. Price averaging down is usually a good move when you like a stock, right @Krugminator2? Thinking about adding another share or two this week.

[Krugminator2]

Robinhood IPOs Thursday, July 29th. Themes tend to underperform when significant IPOs and futures contracts hit the market. I wouldn't be surprised if Bitcoin and meme stocks hold up until Thursday and then there is a sell off. Not a prediction. More something to be aware of and take advantage of if things start to sell.

[Krugminator2]

Robinhood IPOs Thursday, July 29th. Themes tend to underperform when significant IPOs and futures contracts hit the market. I wouldn't be surprised if Bitcoin and meme stocks hold up until Thursday and then there is a sell off. Not a prediction. More something to be aware of and take advantage of if things start to sell.

Meme stocks straight down. GME down 40ish dollars since. Fresh multi-month lows on AMC

[devil21]

nm can't get image to embed.

Gensler basically admitted during a CNBC interview that Citadel and Virtu are routing buy orders to dark pools but routing sell orders (and wash trading) to lit exchanges. There's something very systemically wrong when the Citadel hedge fund naked shorts a stock, then the Citadel market maker routes trades that go against its hedge fund position off-exchange to a Citadel dark pool. End result is Citadel literally controls half of the market's daily movements however it wants. I've been writing about this through this entire thread. Rigged piracy. It's not even about shorting, per se, but rather that Citadel literally can ensure that its hedge fund never loses a bet since it controls half of all order flow and how that flow may or may not be allowed to affect exchange pricing.

On GME: just watch the options chain starting wednesday of each week. whatever price screws the most options holders on both sides, relatively close to the published price on wednesday, is where it'll close friday.
this is what happens when two entities control almost all order routing and how that routing affects, (or doesn't affect, if that is the goal) the published price. it's a license to steal under false pretenses.

[Krugminator2]

Reshorted GME. Might not work. Low risk idea. Closed at 157. Risk 8 bucks with idea that it will drop 100 bucks or so in a slow bleed over the next year

[devil21]

Reshorted GME. Might not work. Low risk idea. Closed at 157. Risk 8 bucks with idea that it will drop 100 bucks or so in a slow bleed over the next year

Good luck. Why you insist on messing with GME, given all the dodgy $#@! going on with that symbol, I'll never understand.

[Krugminator2]

Reshorted GME. Might not work. Low risk idea. Closed at 157. Risk 8 bucks with idea that it will drop 100 bucks or so in a slow bleed over the next year

Really strong close today. Exited. for a small loss.

[ccrsedona]

This is my first time here, just registered and Don't know how to start a post, it says I don't have permission. This is off topic but I wanted to say I tried to post on FB a link to an old article here about the real reasons that the Civil War started. Lo and behold FB Blocked it and wouldn't let me post it? They said it went against Community Standards. F them Fascists!

[oyarde]

This is my first time here, just registered and Don't know how to start a post, it says I don't have permission. This is off topic but I wanted to say I tried to post on FB a link to an old article here about the real reasons that the Civil War started. Lo and behold FB Blocked it and wouldn't let me post it? They said it went against Community Standards. F them Fascists!

Greetings .

[devil21]

Retail has started directing brokers who offer IEX exchange routing to place their GME buy orders through IEX, under the discovery that IEX isn't controlled by Citadel and Virtu and such routing does affect exchange pricing. Brokers offering IEX are already limited since most brokers are under Citadel's pay-for-order-flow scheme already. What has been revealed since retail started directing buys to IEX? ALL of the brokers who offer IEX routing still send the order to Citadel (CDRG) first and Citadel promises to then forward the order on to IEX exchange. I'm sure Citadel can be trusted to follow through Never mind that such practice is explicitly illegal, since it violates SEC trading regulations for a broker to not route an order where the trader directs it to be sent.

The general conclusion being drawn by deep-diving folks is that there are no more organic shares being traded (they've all been bought and held by retail and various institutions). Citadel is now simply conjuring up fake shares to "sell" from their dark pool, using their 6 day ability to do so as a market-maker (a form of temporary naked shorting which is legal for market makers to do to ensure market liquidity and trading activity), until they locate a real share to deliver to the buyer's account. If no real shares are found, and apparently there aren't any being traded, Citadel just experiences a fail-to-deliver and hides it in the dark pool. Buyer still sees that share in their account, though. Such a practice would explain a lot about what's going on and what has been going on in "markets" for a long, long time.

[Krugminator2]

The general conclusion being drawn by deep-diving folks is that there are no more organic shares being traded (they've all been bought and held by retail and various institutions). Citadel is now simply conjuring up fake shares to "sell" from their dark pool, using their 6 day ability to do so as a market-maker (a form of temporary naked shorting which is legal for market makers to do to ensure market liquidity and trading activity), until they locate a real share to deliver to the buyer's account. If no real shares are found, and apparently there aren't any being traded, Citadel just experiences a fail-to-deliver and hides it in the dark pool. Buyer still sees that share in their account, though. Such a practice would explain a lot about what's going on and what has been going on in "markets" for a long, long time.

GME is easy to borrow (meaning I don't have to pay to locate it) at all three brokers I use. The current short interest is only 13%. There is no reason to naked short. It doesn't even make sense. People can short all the shares they want.

Lets say every retail trader made it so they couldn't have their shares lent (probably .0005% do this) but lets say they did. You have still have institutions that hold 40% of the shares. They get paid interest to lend shares. It is no brainer for Vanguard or whoever has shares to do this with their index funds.

Here is the reality. This is $30-$60 stock. No one is suppressing the price. This WILL drop. It isn't a matter of if but when. And it will have nothing to do with the Jews or Blackrock or Citadel or Steve Cohen or market makers. The company is junk and the fundamentals aren't getting better. Weeds don't grow to the sky. Gravity is undefeated.

[devil21]

GME is easy to borrow (meaning I don't have to pay to locate it) at all three brokers I use. The current short interest is only 13%. There is no reason to naked short. It doesn't even make sense. People can short all the shares they want.

Lets say every retail trader made it so they couldn't have their shares lent (probably .0005% do this) but lets say they did. You have still have institutions that hold 40% of the shares. They get paid interest to lend shares. It is no brainer for Vanguard or whoever has shares to do this with their index funds.

So you know that your borrowed shares for retail shorting are either shares taken from someone's margin account at your broker or an institutional holder lending but not selling you sell their shares. What I posted is that liquidity of organic, owned shares being bought and sold has dried up. If you chose to simply buy a share, you would likely receive a fake share from Citadel's off-exchange dark pool, not a NYSE traded share. Retail buys are being routed into dark pools to keep them off the exchange of organic buy/sell spreads. Short sales like yours, along with wash trading, is what constitutes most of the daily volume. Volume which continues to drop lower and lower. Or put more succinctly, retail and institutions own the entire float and are not selling. Only buying and lending for shorting. Of course all expect to receive those lent shares back at some point. Published SI is irrelevant. I respect your general knowledge of trading but there's several ways to game SI numbers using options and other tricks. Or better yet, just read this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/...shares_part_1/

Here is the reality. This is $30-$60 stock. No one is suppressing the price. This WILL drop. It isn't a matter of if but when. And it will have nothing to do with the Jews or Blackrock or Citadel or Steve Cohen or market makers. The company is junk and the fundamentals aren't getting better. Weeds don't grow to the sky. Gravity is undefeated.

LOL nothing about valuation matters in the entire "market" anymore, and most certainly not regarding GME. You may be right about real value but real value stopped mattering one bit when the Fed started doling out money directly to Wall St and when underhanded tactics to suppress normal market functions were implemented back in January.

[devil21]

Really strong close today. Exited. for a small loss.

I bet you're glad you're not still short today, eh?

[Krugminator2]

I bet you're glad you're not still short today, eh?

The only time I have bought GME was last November around 12 and sold it around 14 or 15. It was actually a pretty good spot to get long today. AMC was a perfect squeeze setup. I have a such a hang up buying crap like this. Good work if you still have AMC.

These have been my best last couple of days in a long time. Took some off the table today. Will take a bunch off the table tomorrow before the Fed Meeting on Wednesday. This feels like a last ditch squeeze to get people back into the market before a rug pull later in the week. Might be wrong but will use this rally to sell into.

[devil21]

Some recent developments in the Gamestop saga:

- lawsuit discovery has revealed that both Vlad Tenev and Ken Griffin lied to Congress during the first hearing.

- Citadel loaded up fresh shorts overnight Jan 27-28 on GME after RH and other brokers were directed to shut down buying the following morning of Jan 28 (and in my case, at least, my entire trading account with Ally was locked at the direction of APEX Clearing for 2 days, preventing me from maintaining other positions also). This indicates massive conspiracy between Citadel, clearinghouses and brokers to defraud traders since they knew the price would plummet once buying was turned off. RH's COO said "we will be crucified for pco'ing (position close only)". It's one thing to claim pco'ing to protect the overall markets. It's something entirely different to purposely attempt to hugely profit from it at the same time....but that's what Citadel did. Pirates can't just not steal, can they?

- (edited) Some GME holders are directly registering shares in their names through Computershare, thus removing the shares from "street name" registration with Cede&Co and by extension, could prevent the new shares from being lent right back to Citadel to short again. Recent educated estimates show many times the published "shares issued" have been created by market makers (perhaps as high as 1 billion+ synthetic shares). Indeed the market is full of "fake shares" of GME and probably every other stock of consequence.

(eta^^^: I do not endorse the direct registration of stocks, DRS, as a way to bypass Dtc since it does no such thing. Seems to me that it adds another layer of complexity that isn't needed for selling. Only physical stock certs bypass Dtc. DRS does not. DRS may be a benefit for taking shares out of the "available short pool" but it does not provide full ownership rights. DRS agents even admit that selling at very high price generally requires sending written letters, processing time, perhaps even a fee and then after all of that is processed the DRS agent sells in mass lots of shares at whatever the market price is at that time. Good luck with that stuff working out if/when GME launches, as DRS agent wades through multiple thousands of "SELL NOW" letters. IMO, it's better to keep shares liquid with a broker and sit on hold waiting to talk to the broker's trading desk for relatively quick execution. Perhaps they can shut down the website but would they risk shutting down all customer access phone lines also? Yes there are other considerations such as whether a shareholder through retail brokerage is eligible for a dividend, as opposed to a registered shareholder....remember that "registration" of anything means turning over ownership to some other entity....I have no thoughts on the dividend scenario. It's quite a system of mumbo jumbo and $#@!ery they've built. Probably best course imo is to spread existing shares and newly bought shares out amongst brokers and the DRS agent, including direct purchase via DRS agent, to limit counterparty risk. It is worth noting that DRS agent accounts are generally -not- covered by SIPC insurance, though, unlike regular brokers.)

[devil21]

A decent clif notes video of GME events to date:



Stayed tuned. Fun is just getting started.

[devil21]

Post 293 mentioned the IEX exchange. A new wrinkle in the IEX lit market routing appears today. Citadel sued the SEC for implementing a rule that allows IEX submitted orders to circumvent Citadel's illegal price fixing. I've noticed how PFOF-to-Citadel brokers are limited in how much an order re-submission can be adjusted if the bid isn't met. Usually only in .05 increments. Where does that extra .04-.05 cents go? You already know folks....Hamptons beach houses! This new order system anticipates the rigged piracy and instead automatically resubmits at better pricing for the buyer, thus limiting the PFOF skim. Of course Citadel hates that and will claim their piracy of investor's money is for investors own good in court......

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKBN27201E

(Reuters) - Citadel Securities, which provides trading services to asset managers, banks, broker-dealers and hedge funds, has sued the Securities and Exchange Commission over its decision to approve a new mechanism for trading stocks at upstart exchange operator IEX Group Inc.

“The SEC failed to properly consider the costs and burdens imposed by this proposal that will undermine the reliability of our markets and harm tens of millions of retail investors,” a Citadel Securities spokeswoman said in an email on Friday.

The lawsuit, which was filed on Friday and first reported by the Wall Street Journal, increases Citadel Securities’ dispute over IEX’s “D-Limit” order type. The D-Limit is designed to give traders a way to buy or sell stocks at the exchange while protecting them against unfavorable price moves.

Citadel Securities earlier asked the SEC to reject the proposal from IEX, saying the D-Limit will damage the U.S. stock market’s integrity. But in August, the SEC sided with IEX allowing the plan to go forward.

Citadel Securities asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the SEC’s decision to approve the D-Limit order, according to a copy of the court filing.

The SEC was not immediately available for comment late on Friday.

IEX President Ronan Ryan, in a statement quoted by the Wall Street Journal, said he was confident the SEC’s decision will be upheld. “Since its launch on Oct. 1, D-Limit is already proving valuable to a broad set of market participants,” Ryan said.

“From our perspective, this recent action should only encourage more investors, brokers and market makers to use D-Limit given that the protections we have created are clearly working,” Ryan said.

IEX CEO: Markets are rigged. Check out this video. You can tell who's the $#@!heel and whos the decent dude.


Long interview with Flash Boys author from above video about HFT theft and author of The Big Short book.