The DRS number stagnation has folks looking into past ideas like heat lamp to explain. I think Ape Historian is trying to piece together some of what was discussed to clarify whether itās an issue
Doing my best to point to actual evidence we have
ProgVirus
The DRS number stagnation has folks looking into past ideas like heat
lamp to explain. I think Ape Historian is trying to piece together some
of what was discussed to clarify whether itās an issue
Doing my best to point to actual evidence we have
Hey all. Writing this a few days after the 12/6/23 Q3 10Q release from GameStop,
which showed the third consecutive stagnate reporting for DRS ownership (after
controlling for Mainstar un-DRSing 1.2million shares during Q2). Why are the DRS
numbers stagnant? From my perspective, there are 3 possible explanations /
hypotheses. 1. The DTCC is some...
1) itās a cross post and those arenāt allowed.
2) itās a dd from a year ago thatās had no further changes made to it. OP isnāt adding anything.
3) itās the EXACT same bullet points brought up with nothing new
the word ātypicallyā.
no one has an answer on what effects the amount needed for OE.
no one can actually show that book shares can be included if you have plan shares.
Itās not a discussion, itās an echo
7:50 AM
Itās a debate that goes nowhere because those questions donāt have answers and instead itās a tug of war to convince people by repeating themselves
So many folks pushing that idea donāt even have a core/basic understanding that DRS = Book, DSPP = Plan, nor do they seem to understand that having shares directly registered in your name on the books of the transfer agent is different from the DTCās Direct Registration System
TiberiusWoodwind
Itās a debate that goes nowhere because those questions donāt have
answers and instead itās a tug of war to convince people by repeating
themselves
It goes nowhere because discussion dries up when it's apparent we need to pressure CS for an answer, and to pressure anyone preventing them from giving us one if there are any.
7:52 AM
Like I don't get it, that's the best way to mend the divide this all created
7:52 AM
why not push for that on both sides?
LastResortFriend
Like I don't get it, that's the best way to mend the divide this all created
To be fair, this divide ran further back than this. But yes, itād be nice if people stopped wasting their breath repeating the same points and just asked
TiberiusWoodwind
To be fair, this divide ran further back than this. But yes, itād be
nice if people stopped wasting their breath repeating the same points
and just asked
@FluffyTrex I honestly think the best scenario SStonk can get out of this is redirecting HLT discussion into the act of contacting CS. In the meantime while we don't have an official answer that is crystal clear nothing stops us from staying to course with our own individual interpretations.
It's either HLT Drama 2.0 or a call to action imo.
Idk. Part of me wonders if people are scared of what theyāll find when they open the box and thatās why they donāt focus on just emailing CS. Other part of me thinks itās apathy.
What rule is being violated exactly? The sub referenced no longer exists so it doesnāt seem to fit under brigading or meta. Also, it seems a bit odd for mods to prevent discussion on heat lamp theory, thereby limiting apes ability to post about it on superstonk, then complain that people are referring to posts from outside the sub.
LastResortFriend
@FluffyTrex
I honestly think the best scenario SStonk can get out of this is
redirecting HLT discussion into the act of contacting CS. In the
meantime while we don't have an official answer that is crystal clear
nothing stops us from staying to course with our own individual
interpretations.
It's either HLT Drama 2.0 or a call to action imo.
Letting discussion take place has always been a goal. The issue has always been that HLT ran foul of Rule 6 and that never got fixed.
But the community needs space to discuss to space is what we gave here (the post) anyway.
There's literally 0 evidence that Plan contaminates Book, the HLT "theories" got disproved by the ledger data and a few other things that happened since then anyway. BUT discussion on how users feel it's best to hold their investments should and will always be allowed. The line in the sand is elitism obviously; whether that be Book elitism, Options elitism or anything else like that.
(I know that was a little overkill as a response but I figured I'd splurge some relevant info in there too)
RedditMarq
What rule is being violated exactly? The sub referenced no longer
exists so it doesnāt seem to fit under brigading or meta. Also, it seems
a bit odd for mods to prevent discussion on heat lamp theory, thereby
limiting apes ability to post about it on superstonk, then complain that
people are referring to posts from outside the sub.
FYI mods deleted the original post because it broke Rule 6. The author then trolled the mod team by refusing to post it again when the offer was made. As a policy DD is supposed to be posted by the author so users can Q&A with them on the data provided. (That's my personal understanding)(edited)
FluffyTrex
FYI mods deleted the original post because it broke Rule 6. The author
then trolled the mod team by refusing to post it again when the offer
was made. As a policy DD is supposed to be posted by the author so users
can Q&A with them on the data provided. (That's my personal
understanding) (edited)
Inaccurate comment they got linked to. Annoying Reddit thing where if you ban someone using a comment/post then they can get linked to it. Desktop doesn't warn you that this is going to happend where as mobile does. Thank you Reddit spaghetti code.
8:07 AM
So ban reason doesn't match the comment they were linked to
People post about and build on othersā theories all the time. This is how theories are verified or proven untrue. People contribute to the discussion. The original author doesnāt get to prevent others from opining, and neither should mods. This is coming back up again because the drs numbers are the same again. Mods are overstepping here. Just because you donāt like the theory doesnāt mean it shouldnāt be discussed on the sub.
LastResortFriend
Want me to let him know it was actually for Rule 6 and reddit was being a tard?
People post about and build on othersā theories all the time. This is
how theories are verified or proven untrue. People contribute to the
discussion. The original author doesnāt get to prevent others from
opining, and neither should mods. This is coming back up again because
the drs numbers are the same again. Mods are overstepping here. Just
because you donāt like the theory doesnāt mean it shouldnāt be discussed
on the sub.
I've already said though, HLT has moved beyond it's author. If anything TehChives has the role of explaining since posting this on lemmy: https://lemmy.whynotdrs.org/post/487756(edited)
8:13 AM
And technically HLT was just one part of the discussion on ER's post.
8:13 AM
There's literally so much room to redirect this away from drama and into action instead.
RedditMarq
People post about and build on othersā theories all the time. This is
how theories are verified or proven untrue. People contribute to the
discussion. The original author doesnāt get to prevent others from
opining, and neither should mods. This is coming back up again because
the drs numbers are the same again. Mods are overstepping here. Just
because you donāt like the theory doesnāt mean it shouldnāt be discussed
on the sub.
OP also blocked people who were critical of points he was making in his post. Like trusting computershared over official GME releases and having no evidence to back up exchange volume effecting OE %. So yes, he literally stopped others from responding on his posts
Heck, give em your opinion like you would anyway but then add that call to contact CS at the end every time you do.(edited)
RedditMarq
People post about and build on othersā theories all the time. This is
how theories are verified or proven untrue. People contribute to the
discussion. The original author doesnāt get to prevent others from
opining, and neither should mods. This is coming back up again because
the drs numbers are the same again. Mods are overstepping here. Just
because you donāt like the theory doesnāt mean it shouldnāt be discussed
on the sub.
Also just to clear up Rule 6 it's to prevent "fact from theory" and "misinformation" rather than anything else like discussion.
If someone claims:
"If you don't buy Options then hedgies get paid by GameStop every month you hold shares"
It's very different to
"I've got this theory that GameStop is obligated to pay hedgies unless you buy options every month"
Second one isn't a claim it's their own thought and promotes discussion. The claim would need to be backed by a source in order to be spoken like it's the truth.
sure sure, this thread is about the post that's up on the subreddit not HLT in general
8:15 AM
Or it's meant to be lol
FluffyTrex
Also just to clear up Rule 6 it's to prevent "fact from theory" and "misinformation" rather than anything else like discussion.
If someone claims:
"If you don't buy Options then hedgies get paid by GameStop every month
you hold shares"
It's very different to
"I've got this theory that GameStop is obligated to pay hedgies unless
you buy options every month"
Second one isn't a claim it's their own thought and promotes discussion.
The claim would need to be backed by a source in order to be spoken
like it's the truth.
So mods decide what is true and what isnāt? There were lots of sources posted with hlt, including info from Computershare and others. Not saying hlt is right or wrong, and I donāt think it is responsible for the drs numbers, but hlt isnāt misinformation.
FluffyTrex
sure sure, this thread is about the post that's up on the subreddit not HLT in general
You asked us what we think, can you tell us what you guys think?
RedditMarq
So mods decide what is true and what isnāt? There were lots of sources
posted with hlt, including info from Computershare and others. Not
saying hlt is right or wrong, and I donāt think it is responsible for
the drs numbers, but hlt isnāt misinformation.
We definitely don't decide what's wrong or right but rather we arbitrate that the discussion had in a fair manner (Rules 1 and 6 mostly). It's about making sure the community doesn't devolve into "louder opinon is right opinon" or "I said it so you have to prove me wrong". Stuff like that.
LastResortFriend
You asked us what we think, can you tell us what you guys think?
I hesitate to present a "unified opinion of the mods" because I think we (as usual) have our own opinions on it. Personally I want the community to discuss whatever they can in a productive manner that leads to fact finding etc.
I personally think this topic (HLT) is based on misunderstandings but I'm never going to moderate content on the subreddit based on my thoughts. Rather if I really had a problem with the premise of a discussion on the sub I'd participate in it and hope to educate/add my thoughts.(edited)
FluffyTrex
We definitely don't decide what's wrong or right but rather we
arbitrate that the discussion had in a fair manner (Rules 1 and 6
mostly). It's about making sure the community doesn't devolve into
"louder opinon is right opinon" or "I said it so you have to prove me
wrong". Stuff like that.
But the beauty of Reddit is that the posts liked most (the loudest) are upvoted to the top. Whatās wrong with that? Whatās wrong with saying, this is what I found, prove me wrong? If itās nonsense it will be downvoted. Do you see how making a judgment call against the will of the majority on the sun could make mods seem compromised? Posting an incorrect theory isnāt necessarily misinformation. There is a difference between wrong, and being malicious or jeopardizing the sub. The rules canāt be a license for mods to delete posts and theories they donāt like.
FluffyTrex
I hesitate to present a "unified opinion of the mods" because I think
we (as usual) have our own opinions on it. Personally I want the
community to discuss whatever they can in a productive manner that leads
to fact finding etc.
I personally think this topic (HLT) is based on misunderstandings but
I'm never going to moderate content on the subreddit based on
my thoughts. Rather if I really had a problem with the premise of a
discussion on the sub I'd participate in it and hope to educate/add my
thoughts. (edited)
You don't have to, you can say a few of the opinions without even naming names ;P
8:24 AM
But more specifically about what they think should be done about the post if anything(edited)
8:25 AM
We all kinda know each other's stances on HLT already after all
RedditMarq
So mods decide what is true and what isnāt? There were lots of sources
posted with hlt, including info from Computershare and others. Not
saying hlt is right or wrong, and I donāt think it is responsible for
the drs numbers, but hlt isnāt misinformation.
I think the real harm comes when examining the subsequent illogical leaps afterwards:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/12ksn9l/repost_with_mod_approval_all_gme_computershare/
The most problematic thing being guesswork saying that anyone who has any fractional shares at all suddenly has their whole account tainted, even with the distinction in the UI between book and plan shares. Even in some exteremely bizarre twist of events that were the case, advocating people do things that hurt the long term for short term metrics that could only hide growth for so long, seems counterproductive.
My other problem is the dude's character was shown where he literally self promotes himself with a screenshot where one of the reporting dates was changed so that it would say "6days1week".
More "leave it" than "pull it" as can been determined by that post still being live. Other than that I don't think even half of the team has gotten involved in talking about this post specifically. We brought it here because that's what the SCC is for imo.
stonkyagraha
I think the real harm comes when examining the subsequent illogical leaps afterwards:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/12ksn9l/repost_with_mod_approval_all_gme_computershare/
The most problematic thing being guesswork saying that anyone who has
any fractional shares at all suddenly has their whole account tainted,
even with the distinction in the UI between book and plan shares. Even
in some exteremely bizarre twist of events that were the case,
advocating people do things that hurt the long term for short term
metrics that could only hide growth for so long, seems
counterproductive.
My other problem is the dude's character was shown where he literally
self promotes himself with a screenshot where one of the reporting dates
was changed so that it would say "6days1week".
Got a receipt for the self promotion? I thought it was some other guy claiming that since I saw him deny they did that as a message over in the DRS server
RedditMarq
But the beauty of Reddit is that the posts liked most (the loudest) are
upvoted to the top. Whatās wrong with that? Whatās wrong with saying,
this is what I found, prove me wrong? If itās nonsense it will be
downvoted. Do you see how making a judgment call against the will of the
majority on the sun could make mods seem compromised? Posting an
incorrect theory isnāt necessarily misinformation. There is a difference
between wrong, and being malicious or jeopardizing the sub. The rules
canāt be a license for mods to delete posts and theories they donāt
like.
But the beauty of Reddit is that the posts liked most (the loudest) are
upvoted to the top. Whatās wrong with that? Whatās wrong with saying,
this is what I found, prove me wrong? If itās nonsense it will be
downvoted. Do you see how making a judgment call against the will of the
majority on the sun could make mods seem compromised? Posting an
incorrect theory isnāt necessarily misinformation. There is a difference
between wrong, and being malicious or jeopardizing the sub. The rules
canāt be a license for mods to delete posts and theories they donāt
like.
This would be beautiful if we did not live in a world that literally has people being human trafficked for scam farms. There is a lot uncertain and there is a black market for accounts and votes, so personally, I have more confidence seeing mods excercise sound fair judgement, then go along with whatever the perceived will of the majority all the time. You can probably tell in my post discussion, I fall under the opinion that not enough is done haha
LastResortFriend
Got a receipt for the self promotion? I thought it was some other guy
claiming that since I saw him deny they did that as a message over in
the DRS server
smh it was some other guy, 6 Days hasn't spoken about it on the server my bad
RedditMarq
But the beauty of Reddit is that the posts liked most (the loudest) are
upvoted to the top. Whatās wrong with that? Whatās wrong with saying,
this is what I found, prove me wrong? If itās nonsense it will be
downvoted. Do you see how making a judgment call against the will of the
majority on the sun could make mods seem compromised? Posting an
incorrect theory isnāt necessarily misinformation. There is a difference
between wrong, and being malicious or jeopardizing the sub. The rules
canāt be a license for mods to delete posts and theories they donāt
like.
This is an interesting one because depending on context it could be okay or it could be not. If what they found was a primary source then great! If what they found was a comment on a Reddit post that itself is a baseless claim then meh.
Do you see how making a judgment call against the will of the majority on the sun could make mods seem compromised?
That's what the SCC is for! Where we bring this stuff so we can have the discussion and get an idea of the communities thoughts and feelings prior to any kind of action should it be thought necessary.
Posting an incorrect theory isnāt necessarily misinformation
Accurate, no argument. But that's because you said "theory" rather than "claim" that's the line in the sand and an important one (Rule 6: Back up claims with sources).
There is a difference between wrong, and being malicious or jeopardizing the sub. The rules canāt be a license for mods to delete posts and theories they donāt like.
100% No argument at all.
RedditMarq
But the beauty of Reddit is that the posts liked most (the loudest) are
upvoted to the top. Whatās wrong with that? Whatās wrong with saying,
this is what I found, prove me wrong? If itās nonsense it will be
downvoted. Do you see how making a judgment call against the will of the
majority on the sun could make mods seem compromised? Posting an
incorrect theory isnāt necessarily misinformation. There is a difference
between wrong, and being malicious or jeopardizing the sub. The rules
canāt be a license for mods to delete posts and theories they donāt
like.
I kinda disagree here.
During peak heat lamp drama on the sub, we had folk watching and live discussing in the discord.
Multiple people observed any critical comment would get 20 downdoots all within a second of each other. Not always right on posting. They'd then be autocollapsed most of the time and pushed off.
Maybe that's just reddit batching things, but it happened often enough users got suspicious and it became a talking point.
2
Lairian -Flairy Type-
I kinda disagree here.
During peak heat lamp drama on the sub, we had folk watching and live
discussing in the discord.
Multiple people observed any critical comment would get 20 downdoots all
within a second of each other. Not always right on posting. They'd
then be autocollapsed most of the time and pushed off.
Maybe that's just reddit batching things, but it happened often enough
users got suspicious and it became a talking point.
They could be collecting ups and downs and only updating the page/app every once in a while as a batch job.
I don't have access to the code to be sure. What we observed and talked about in the discord was a seeming pattern in ups coming in slow, then a -20 all at once.
Obviously impossible to be sure why. Could be stinky, could be just reddit doing reddit things.
1
1
Rough_Willow
I'd like to see them conditionally unbanned if they agree to repost their DD and put in the effort to defend their points.
The problem is that the sources aren't clear enough because of how much legal speak they actually are. HLT's core issue is the ambiguity from that legal speak. We get hung up and forget the fact that together we can get a solid answer and it should be even easier than trying to get something out of the SEC even, so why has it not happened yet?
Rough_Willow
I'd like to see them conditionally unbanned if they agree to repost their DD and put in the effort to defend their points.
Literally any time. The SCC has really really helped us, we want to hear your feedback! /gen
2
Lairian -Flairy Type-
I kinda disagree here.
During peak heat lamp drama on the sub, we had folk watching and live
discussing in the discord.
Multiple people observed any critical comment would get 20 downdoots all
within a second of each other. Not always right on posting. They'd
then be autocollapsed most of the time and pushed off.
Maybe that's just reddit batching things, but it happened often enough
users got suspicious and it became a talking point.
Parse out social media posts in my profile and go about 1 1/2 years and check my votes.
9:51 AM
Reddit or my phone took a shit again. Can't link now
9:53 AM
9:55 AM
I wanted to do a post so I can show which part and how it is misinterpreted but there are so many of them. Maybe if I post a series but still too long.
The problem is that the sources aren't clear enough because of how much
legal speak they actually are. HLT's core issue is the ambiguity from
that legal speak. We get hung up and forget the fact that together we
can get a solid answer and it should be even easier than trying to get
something out of the SEC even, so why has it not happened yet?
The reason why I make the request is because I see the value in finally ironing out this piece of DD so that the merit can finally be defended by the original author. The goal is to highlight ambiguity and show which points have solid merit. This should allow the original author to rework their DD or average users to message their representatives about ambiguious points.
1
Rough_Willow
Outlining ambiguity is how we find what needs to be clarified from our representatives and the appropriate agencies.
If the mods were to adopt the stance that everyone should get on CS about this we would get to this stage quickly and easily.
I push for the mods to do this over sitting back quietly because it would be strong enough signaling to everyone else that we're uniting once more on this topic and seeking higher authority to clarify things and that egos and personal opinions are being set aside for now while we focus on getting to the heart of it.
Anything less than a mod attitude of "stop the divide and let's get the final answer together" leaves room for more division imo.
LastResortFriend
If the mods were to adopt the stance that everyone should get on CS
about this we would get to this stage quickly and easily.
I push for the mods to do this over sitting back quietly because it
would be strong enough signaling to everyone else that we're uniting
once more on this topic and seeking higher authority to clarify things
and that egos and personal opinions are being set aside for now while we
focus on getting to the heart of it.
Anything less than a mod attitude of "stop the divide and let's get the
final answer together" leaves room for more division imo.
Everyone. Get Dave and WeTheInvestors to put a letter/email together. Get people on twitter to start calling for answers, get the folks in the discord servers used of redirecting arguments about it into a productive vocal avenue. Pin the resources and the message to the sub. This warrants reporting to battle stations.
LastResortFriend
Everyone. Get Dave and WeTheInvestors to put a letter/email together.
Get people on twitter to start calling for answers, get the folks in the
discord servers used of redirecting arguments about it into a
productive vocal avenue. Pin the resources and the message to the sub.
This warrants reporting to battle stations.
Agree, getting in touch with ER as he investigates will be a good idea, mods already have their own stances they've built over the year, shouldn't take to long to get that list of questions.
Having had contact with behind the curtain at CS there's no need to go to them with many voices. If there's a clear question that's not been asked before then we can probably get it to them. They have to run answers though legal departments and stuff it seems so answers take a long while to get back.
FluffyTrex
Having had contact with behind the curtain at CS there's no need to go
to them with many voices. If there's a clear question that's not been
asked before then we can probably get it to them. They have to run
answers though legal departments and stuff it seems so answers take a
long while to get back.
One thing I would ask is about those shares held for operational efficiency they've been "assured" by their broker by that the DTC is not using them for locates. More specifically I would ask if this "assurance" is verifiable by CS or not.
They won't be able to say what it is but they should be able to say if they can verify for themselves or not.
FluffyTrex
Having had contact with behind the curtain at CS there's no need to go
to them with many voices. If there's a clear question that's not been
asked before then we can probably get it to them. They have to run
answers though legal departments and stuff it seems so answers take a
long while to get back.
Here's the thing, I heard it's not just CS we might have to contact, I can't find where but I read Paul Conn was waiting for a back and forth with the SEC.(edited)
11:37 AM
I should have taken a screenshot.
LastResortFriend
One thing I would ask is about those shares held for operational
efficiency they've been "assured" by their broker by that the DTC is not
using them for locates. More specifically I would ask if this
"assurance" is verifiable by CS or not.
They won't be able to say what it is but they should be able to say if
they can verify for themselves or not.
oh that's what you meant. Yeah that's a great question.
LastResortFriend
One thing I would ask is about those shares held for operational
efficiency they've been "assured" by their broker by that the DTC is not
using them for locates. More specifically I would ask if this
"assurance" is verifiable by CS or not.
They won't be able to say what it is but they should be able to say if
they can verify for themselves or not.
If we can confirm that the DTCC has no involvement in setting the input values used to determine whatever equation they use, that should knock a peg out of the HLT DD.
Simply, if noone is putting sell orders that 10-20% stays at the minimum threshold.
Rough_Willow
If we can confirm that the DTCC has no involvement in setting the input
values used to determine whatever equation they use, that should knock a
peg out of the HLT DD.
We know that the DTC ends up with some plan shares so if they don't get to determine anything, or rather if it is CS who determines that input I would just want to know those shares for sure are not able to be used against us. While I trust CS I do not trust their broker so the "assurances" they receive from said broker are sus if they cannot be verified.
LastResortFriend
We know that the DTC ends up with some plan shares so if they don't get
to determine anything, or rather if it is CS who determines that input I
would just want to know those shares for sure are not able to be used
against us. While I trust CS I do not trust their broker so the
"assurances" they receive from said broker are sus if they cannot be
verified.
That's a great question. Might be good to combine with: "What conditions would reduce the total percentage held?" If there's anything we can do in order to shrink that amount, that might be worthwhile.
Oh can you guys imagine the shit show if we find out the following 2 things are trueā¦.
plan shares in OE can be used as locates.
selling activity from Book/Plan accounts is what increases % of OE.
That combo is I think my fear at this point because even though itāll settle the confusion itāll start a brand new round of finger pointing.
1
12:30 PM
And the best part will be if we find out the OE % really is only capped to plan because folks will be going bonkers over a relatively tiny pile of shares but good luck explaining to the outraged that theyāve made a mountain out of a molehill.
2
TiberiusWoodwind
Oh can you guys imagine the shit show if we find out the following 2 things are trueā¦.
plan shares in OE can be used as locates.
selling
activity from Book/Plan accounts is what increases % of OE.
That combo is I think my fear at this point because even though itāll
settle the confusion itāll start a brand new round of finger pointing.
One side saying if the other had sold their plan shares thereād be no locates and the other side saying as they sold more there would be more locates and both ignoring that thereās 25x that could be borrowed elsewhere. You want to talk about a truly Pyrrhic victory? Thatās it.
TiberiusWoodwind
One side saying if the other had sold their plan shares thereād be no
locates and the other side saying as they sold more there would be more
locates and both ignoring that thereās 25x that could be borrowed
elsewhere. You want to talk about a truly Pyrrhic victory? Thatās it.
The other half of this is people ignoring the problem that happens when there are no shares in operational efficiency.
LastResortFriend
One thing I would ask is about those shares held for operational
efficiency they've been "assured" by their broker by that the DTC is not
using them for locates. More specifically I would ask if this
"assurance" is verifiable by CS or not.
They won't be able to say what it is but they should be able to say if
they can verify for themselves or not.
Was it effective as of May 2021? Also thereās a bunch of investor letters attached at the end that look like people responding off a template. Was this on ape radar 2 years ago?
yeah Bibic in the DRS server just said he doubts it's for DRS. Womp Womp. Will still look into it though. Thanks for also looking Plat.
2
TiberiusWoodwind
Was it effective as of May 2021? Also thereās a bunch of investor
letters attached at the end that look like people responding off a
template. Was this on ape radar 2 years ago?
Yeah was 005 meant to focus on preventing rehypothecation?
LastResortFriend
We know that the DTC ends up with some plan shares so if they don't get
to determine anything, or rather if it is CS who determines that input I
would just want to know those shares for sure are not able to be used
against us. While I trust CS I do not trust their broker so the
"assurances" they receive from said broker are sus if they cannot be
verified.
See this shit drives me up the wall. The top comment is about asking other people to peer review itā¦..but the comments that do so have less than a 10th of the votes.
3:04 PM
Also what type of gen Z fucking failures is this place loaded with that we seriously fall back to asking AI for a summary
I just canāt imagine the level of tone deafness. Mojo literally tweeted out a long list of accounts to block last week. Now the guys who hate censorship show up to a space call hosted by a guy whose built a wall to keep out anyone who disagrees with him. And the goal of the call is to repeat the same message to the same people.
TiberiusWoodwind
Considered it but then the opportunity to slam my balls in a car door
popped up and that sounded like it would be less painful.
I swear to God I've only eaten a bit of tinfoil today, but the quality and tone of HLT posts is superiorly reminiscent of BBBYQ posts. Obviously not the content, but the vocal ones 'clarifying' all appear to me to be pushing easily debunkable points, ignoring information, just generally not making coherent sense yet drawing broad conclusions. It's almost like with RC now overseeing investments, the wind's out of the sails on other distraction stocks, so bad actors are falling back to a known nucleation point for noise-makin' /tinfoil
TiberiusWoodwind
I just canāt imagine the level of tone deafness. Mojo literally tweeted
out a long list of accounts to block last week. Now the guys who hate
censorship show up to a space call hosted by a guy whose built a wall to
keep out anyone who disagrees with him. And the goal of the call is to
repeat the same message to the same people.
I swear to God I've only eaten a bit of tinfoil today, but the quality
and tone of HLT posts is superiorly reminiscent of BBBYQ posts.
Obviously not the content, but the vocal ones 'clarifying' all appear to
me to be pushing easily debunkable points, ignoring information, just
generally not making coherent sense yet drawing broad conclusions. It's
almost like with RC now overseeing investments, the wind's out of the
sails on other distraction stocks, so bad actors are falling back to a
known nucleation point for noise-makin' /tinfoil
Pretty much this. I don't like to chew too much tinfoil, but the hostile elitists that are so d\ng* sure of themselves and constantly telling people to go to other places?
I can't help but consider agent provocateurs trying to divide and distract (conquer).
Lairian -Flairy Type-
Pretty much this. I don't like to chew too much tinfoil, but the hostile elitists that are so d\ng* sure of themselves and constantly telling people to go to other places?
I can't help but consider agent provocateurs trying to divide and distract (conquer).
It takes 2 weeks to get a respond and it takes 6 months to get it changed.
ProgVirus
I swear to God I've only eaten a bit of tinfoil today, but the quality
and tone of HLT posts is superiorly reminiscent of BBBYQ posts.
Obviously not the content, but the vocal ones 'clarifying' all appear to
me to be pushing easily debunkable points, ignoring information, just
generally not making coherent sense yet drawing broad conclusions. It's
almost like with RC now overseeing investments, the wind's out of the
sails on other distraction stocks, so bad actors are falling back to a
known nucleation point for noise-makin' /tinfoil
The number of Book Kings that went into DRS posts transfering from brokers to say "NOW BOOK 'EM" told me all I needed to know about how genuine they were and/or how much they actually understood what they were talking about.
I think iāve fought all the book/plan/HLT fights I can fight. Good Luck
4
ProgVirus
I swear to God I've only eaten a bit of tinfoil today, but the quality
and tone of HLT posts is superiorly reminiscent of BBBYQ posts.
Obviously not the content, but the vocal ones 'clarifying' all appear to
me to be pushing easily debunkable points, ignoring information, just
generally not making coherent sense yet drawing broad conclusions. It's
almost like with RC now overseeing investments, the wind's out of the
sails on other distraction stocks, so bad actors are falling back to a
known nucleation point for noise-makin' /tinfoil
Bc one of the things I actually told the person at computershare during our zoom call was that one reason for the plan book thing was bc RC had book king in his bio on Twitter
Ok, is this new verbiage from CS on operational efficiency? Iām on the faq page and under the heading
āAre there differences between shares that are held directly and those that are held in a direct stock purchase plan (DSPP) are reported?ā
This sounds like OE shares are not available for lending
2:52 PM
Iām looking at way back machine now to see when it was added
Ok, is this new verbiage from CS on operational efficiency? Iām on the faq page and under the heading
āAre there differences between shares that are held directly and
those that are held in a direct stock purchase plan (DSPP) are
reported?ā
This sounds like OE shares are not available for lending
Ok. March 20th 2023 is the most recent version from WayBackMachine that shows OE shares are not available for lending. So even if avg market volume could influence it, they arenāt available.
Lol. I didn't realize it was 3 months old. I actually started countering some bad arguments thinking my comments would help add balance against the dogpiling while increasing algorithmic post visibility
3:56 PM
TiberiusWoodwind
Ok, is this new verbiage from CS on operational efficiency? Iām on the faq page and under the heading
āAre there differences between shares that are held directly and
those that are held in a direct stock purchase plan (DSPP) are
reported?ā
This sounds like OE shares are not available for lending
Could you elaborate? My understanding is:
1) I own 101 GME shares in CS
2) I sell 1 share for 1 bajillion bananas
3) Computershare sells one of their shares already with their broker
4) Simultaneously, they remove 1 share from my holdings on their records
5) They send me the proceeds of the sale (minus fees)
Like, they didn't transfer the share in my name to the broker, they sold one they already had and then just balanced the books. I am smooth but that sounds like if it were transferred and we had to await settlement, we wouldn't be able to instantly sell via CS, hence it's purpose - the OE shares held at their broker allow for the instant sell
^ yes. Operational efficiency shares at DTC can be used for immediate settlement when CS users sell shares. If you had to wait for the shares in your name to be ready to sell it could be days from when you put a sell order in to when it actually goes to market. The OE share completes your trade immediate and CS begins the process of moving shares from your account to OE to replenish that pool for the next guy.
5:39 PM
Says as much in the faq that OE is meant to facilitate immediate sentiment
5:41 PM
This is why the heatlamp folks trying to move everything to book would be a massive clusterfuck if it actually happened. Thereād be nothing available to complete trades with so folks would be waiting days to even find out what price they managed to sell for.
5:42 PM
And thatās assuming cs can even move that many shares that fast.
5:43 PM
In short, removing OE would be like removing oil from your car engine. Sure thereās gas but no parts are capable of moving.
All in the name of short term metrics from those that can't handle any transitory periods of ambiguity (which we were already sensitized to since day 1) āāļø
TiberiusWoodwind
This is why the heatlamp folks trying to move everything to book would
be a massive clusterfuck if it actually happened. Thereād be nothing
available to complete trades with so folks would be waiting days to even
find out what price they managed to sell for.
So we say that but we also know the speed that the price can drop as the options market shifts. For sake of argument, letās say price just hit $100k and an ape decided itās finally time to sell. But in this scenario heās selling book shares and in this scenario everyone is totally book and thereās no operational efficiency. His sell order is in to CS but until itās actually no longer registered in his name it canāt hit the market. A day passes and the price starts dropping, another day, another day. Finally CS gives him a confirmation his shares sold at $10k.
6:39 PM
@stonkyagraha ^
6:45 PM
And this is assuming CS isnāt absolutely grinding to a halt as 200k apes all begin putting in sell orders. Now imagine they all start trying to sell one at a time. CS has 14k employees and obviously they arent all involved in name registry. A million requests coming in to even 5k employees is 200 requests per person.
I'm confused with the tag. You had me convinced already. It's a great point. By "short term metrics" I was referring ultimate effect in a what if the counts were fudged.
6:47 PM
Like ok, and. They'll keep growing and be unhidable sooner or later
Absolutely chaos around selling is far more dangerous. I'll probably be burned at the stake if I said this on the subreddit, but I actually advocate at least a couple of non DRS shares just in case.
6:48 PM
What harm does having both really have if we only keep growing
stonkyagraha
What harm does having both really have if we only keep growing
I think theres MORE harm to the group as a whole to not have both
8:08 AM
but also would probably not say that on the sub
8:09 AM
the wording in the Gamestop plan brochure, saying that depending on the volume of shares being sold, orders could be cancelled - thats not great, and probably has to do with operational efficiency
8:10 AM
there's definitely a negative effect on numbers to have people selling fractionals and shutting off auto buys
Oh I see what you mean. Yeah tough call. My guess though is you are still gonna be standing in cue with the rest of the people trying to sell or transfer.
oh interesting thought.. hmm Id think that the shares to be sold would be processed different than a transfer... but Im not 100% sure.. I think it is different bc theyve never referred to those OE shares in terms of transferring
Platinumsparkles
oh interesting thought.. hmm Id think that the shares to be sold would
be processed different than a transfer... but Im not 100% sure.. I think
it is different bc theyve never referred to those OE shares in terms of
transferring
I just think about number of CS employees. Only so many people who are in charge of that type of stuff. Hit them with a lot of requests at once and itās a funnel
1
āāļø
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
āāļø
1
