GameStop Rebellion: Retail Traders Take on Wall Street Hedge Funds

[Mike]

Well, they did try to counter it in the way the Reditt community day traders are currently doing, but what this goes to show is that centralized efforts are useless; only a decentralized 'swarm effort', a network of many individuals in concert, can make a dent in the concentrated financial firepower of large hedge funds.

I had been thinking about this before your post and I really like how you phrased it with "decentralized 'swarm effort'". I think "unplanned and coordinated in a very limited fashion decentralized 'swarm effort' of the masses via viral information spread and action taken via the internet like a virtual justice oriented flash mob" captures it for me and the video that has come to mind related to this is a Murder Hornet being killed by small bees. The Murder Hornet may be very formidable and dangerous, but the 'masses' of bees, if they work together and swarm, can kill it.

It's another simple example of too many people, with too much money in a system that has lost complete sense of what is considered valuable or not in day-to-day life.

Fwiw. Dogecoin is a viable crypto created and maintained for a specific purpose, even if it was created as a joke from the start. For a lot of the older cryptos, such as Dogecoin, that are still around, most of them are maintained and continue to be developed by volunteers who have the technical knowledge and love the possibility and philosophy of crypto, such as decentralization of currency. Some maintain that Dogecoin, and some cryptos, have value related to there technology, decentralized nature, viability, established network, and community that maintains and interacts with it. Not to say that crypto and Dogecoin are going to save the world though, but it can be seen as a tool that can be used for good or evil depending on who is utilizing and wielding it. Dogecoin Review: DOGE Still Worth It? This You NEED To Know!!

There's may be another "target" in the scoope : silver.

I saw this. The precious metals market may be the most manipulated, controlled, and corrupt market on the planet, and specifically the CME and the markets in London. It may also be one of the most important for TPTB to control. Going after it as a "target" could be a real live wire and if there is an attempt and a noticable impact from the attempt then it is likely we will see verbiage come out and being used in relation to "national security" and "for reason on national security," since one thing that rising and uncontrolled precious metals prices exposes and shows is the corruption of the system and lack of viability of fractional reserve currencies unpegged to anything. In a system that is just for everyone involved the manipulation and control of the PM markets would never be allowed to take place. The precious metals are a weakness, but individuals should be careful in leading the charge openly to challenge the current markets and manipulation.

 

[Revolucionar]

@bjorn @SOTTREADER @psychegram
I think this discussion is very fruitful and I encourage more of it, skepticism on both sides.
But putting aside whether this was engineered or truly grassroots, I think it plays into the hands of the PTB perfectly. Hedge funders are probably the lowest rung of the PTB and fully expendable. What do Lord Klaus and Billy Boy (not that they’re even near the top), the Rothschilds and Rockefellers care about some bozos on Wall Street? Wall Street is the next boogeyman of the PTB and MSM. The plan, as explicitly stated by Klaus et al, is to replace capitalism, so this is perfect for them.

 

[psychegram]

The plan, as explicitly stated by Klaus et al, is to replace capitalism, so this is perfect for them.

Not exactly. The plan is to reform capitalism, really dramatically expand capitalism by turning it into 'stakeholder capitalism'. This isn't a global communist takeover as is often suggested by the less sophisticated reactionary analyses. It's more like techno-feudalism.

For example, one of the techniques they want to bring in is something called 'impact investing'. This is billed as a sort of socially conscious form of investing meant to bring about positive changes in society in an accountable fashion according to measurable metrics. In essence it means the billionaire class plowing money into a community in order to pursue a certain policy; if the policy works (according to whichever metric), the government pays the billionaire back. On top of this the usual framework of speculative investment will be erected, such that e.g. others can go short or long on whether the policy will actually work.

Markets, and financial markets in particular, are absolutely essential to the Great Reset. So they don't want to undermine confidence in markets per se, rather the narrative they're pursuing is more that markets as currently organized aren't benefiting everyone and therefore must be restructured.

From where I'm sitting the Gamestop Rebellion, and especially the reaction to it from the PTB, is not being generally perceived as indicating that markets need to be expanded and given even more power over our lives, but rather an indictment of the entire structure as a fundamentally fraudulent casino. I really don't see this playing into the hands of the Davos crew in the slightest.

 

[SOTTREADER]

Not exactly. The plan is to reform capitalism, really dramatically expand capitalism by turning it into 'stakeholder capitalism'. This isn't a global communist takeover as is often suggested by the less sophisticated reactionary analyses. It's more like techno-feudalism.

For example, one of the techniques they want to bring in is something called 'impact investing'. This is billed as a sort of socially conscious form of investing meant to bring about positive changes in society in an accountable fashion according to measurable metrics. In essence it means the billionaire class plowing money into a community in order to pursue a certain policy; if the policy works (according to whichever metric), the government pays the billionaire back. On top of this the usual framework of speculative investment will be erected, such that e.g. others can go short or long on whether the policy will actually work.

Markets, and financial markets in particular, are absolutely essential to the Great Reset. So they don't want to undermine confidence in markets per se, rather the narrative they're pursuing is more that markets as currently organized aren't benefiting everyone and therefore must be restructured.

From where I'm sitting the Gamestop Rebellion, and especially the reaction to it from the PTB, is not being generally perceived as indicating that markets need to be expanded and given even more power over our lives, but rather an indictment of the entire structure as a fundamentally fraudulent casino. I really don't see this playing into the hands of the Davos crew in the slightest.

The way I see it playing into the Davos crew is that it highlights to them that markets are now accessible to the average Joe and as such, checks and balances need to be put in place to ensure the average Joe doesn't perturb the equilibrium put in place by the investor / elite class.

What do you say to that?

I think this fits into the agenda of technocracy usurping "democracy". It means that only certain people should have certain privileges because the stakes are too high and that the average Joe doesn't have the qualifications or know-how to be able to make certain decisions or exercise certain choices.

 

[Ina]

Too much to quote. I have a problem. I do not understand how can you be so sure on what or how people think at any moment? Why? Because while I read about everything and anything I fail to believe unless I try that on my own at least once, and then I can make up my own mind about what to believe. Good, bad, whatever, that is mine to have and process up to belief stage.
Started smoking at 16 because I liked the smell of tobacco. Aboutsame time started to drink dry white wine because it was always in the kitchen and I wanted to know how it tasted. Riesling. Still like it, a lot. Used to be a time when wine was better than water. After the GB extraction, for a long time I could drink and not get drunk. Nowdays I do not drink because I don’t feel the need to.
I was also given the normal list of don’t do, but I am a bit opaque in the rules department. I am also what you call a slow learner and without my ADHD meds, my greatest occupation is to think of my soul’s immortality mesmerized by the wonder’s of nature. Not very regimented and productive according to other’s. According to others.... Woodsman linked a gzillion page interview with a social engineer. Great many answrs. I wonder thru how many glasses of liquids and how many packets of cigaretted they went, to finish the discussion. Propaganda? Everything is propaganda. It is what you do with it that matters.
Going back to my problem, I love you guys! I also respect each one of you, and value the time I spend reading all posts as for me your thoughts are like gifts from heaven! I lost my only friend recently and my attention and gratitude changed somewhat. You dedicate your trust and energy without expecting anything in return! Or so I think. I admit, this particular topic is close to my heart. I have spent a lot of time on Reddit gaming boards, some very competitive, in the sense that you have to know who you are before entering the space. When you know who you are it is very difficult to be swayed a way or another more so whe you are surrounded by like minded individuals.
With the elections it was a wait and see. Why not take the wait and see approach here as well? More than that why not having this approach together and try make the autopsy post mortem.
This is bigger than the elections there are many other people from many other countries other than US involved in this game. Personally I like what I see. It is a breath of fresh air.
To the moon and beyond!
me

 

[psychegram]

The way I see it playing into the Davos crew is that it highlights to them that markets are now accessible to the average Joe and as such, checks and balances need to be put in place to ensure the average Joe doesn't perturb the equilibrium put in place by the investor / elite class.

What do you say to that?

It certainly says that to Davos Man, and undoubtedly they will do as you say. What it doesn't do is provide them with the narrative they require in order to justify that move to the average Joe. It also doesn't really make sense to me that they would orchestrate an elaborate digital/financial false flag in order to highlight to themselves (?) what they planning on doing anyhow.

Were they planning on locking everything down as part of the Great Reset? Obviously yes.

Will they react to this by locking things down? They're already doing it, albeit hastily and clumsily (suggesting that they're reacting rather than acting).

These people do get caught with their pants down. Witness Trump being elected president.

 

[bjorb]

Silver is up next. Allthough the goal is to bring GME to 1000 first. I'll be counting my lucky stars if that succeeds.

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[SOTTREADER]

It certainly says that to Davos Man, and undoubtedly they will do as you say. What it doesn't do is provide them with the narrative they require in order to justify that move to the average Joe. It also doesn't really make sense to me that they would orchestrate an elaborate digital/financial false flag in order to highlight to themselves (?) what they planning on doing anyhow.

Were they planning on locking everything down as part of the Great Reset? Obviously yes.

Will they react to this by locking things down? They're already doing it, albeit hastily and clumsily (suggesting that they're reacting rather than acting).

These people do get caught with their pants down. Witness Trump being elected president.

Totally agree.. why orchestrate something when they already know what they will do?

My answer to this is two-fold.

1) Following the recent defeat of Trump, which really drove home that the man was in control, a "drama" was created to release the pressure that was built. This event showed that the little guy can stick it to the man which released part of that pressure.

2) By showing how susceptible markets are to the whims of "average Joe's" they can start to build a narrative of why the financial markets need better regulation. I believe this is a developing story with regards the shape these markets will end up taking. Ultimately I feel technocracy will feed into this where not everyone will be equal in the markets.

I feel like it's too good a coincidence that this whole thing took place just when the WEF was happening and right after Biden had been elected. In my view, it's too good to be true.

With regards @Ina's point of wait and see, I started noticing this from my mum. She was always into the "alt space" but with advancing years and little to no change in the real world, I noticed that a sense of cynicism crept in. Life is now reduced to the immediate, to what quality of life one has, not to the wider picture. There's an appreciation that there's certain things one can't change and there are certain dramas that will persist and have always persisted regardless of one's ability to pay attention to events. So why waste energy paying attention? Why not just surrender?

Personally and this could be a symptom of not being an "elder" I feel that one needs to have an idea of what's coming as the elites definitely think in these terms and look to shape the world of tomorrow. One may not have the ability to shape the future but one definitely has some ability to perceive it. A part of me feels like perceiving something to as close or near as possible gives one the ability to bear its weight when it does indeed arrive whilst those caught off-guard are left rudderless and in a position of reacting and relying on the nearest authority figure to build a narrative of what's happening and why. I do believe there's real value in doing the pre-requite work ahead of time to be ready and equipped for what is coming rather than wait, be relatively blind and hope to react effectively when the thing finally arrives.

 

[bjorb]

Sweet

https://twitter.com/x/status/1355616532735422466

 

[Revolucionar]

Not exactly. The plan is to reform capitalism, really dramatically expand capitalism by turning it into 'stakeholder capitalism'.

Yes, I’ve mentioned this in a previous post, too. I think it’s just semantics. They want to completely overhaul capitalism and change the what the essence of it is, free enterprise and supply and demand must give way to a sort of planned system that supposedly benefits all equally. Right!

This isn't a global communist takeover as is often suggested by the less sophisticated reactionary analyses. It's more like techno-feudalism.

My reading of it is that it will have a lot in common with communism, but yes, techno-feudalism(fascism maybe?) is a better descriptor, probably.

Markets, and financial markets in particular, are absolutely essential to the Great Reset. So they don't want to undermine confidence in markets per se, rather the narrative they're pursuing is more that markets as currently organized aren't benefiting everyone and therefore must be restructured.

This is where you get it wrong, I think. They have been parroting the same thing for awhile, namely that capitalism is disenfranchising the vast majority of the population and it needs to be completely restructured. It doesn’t matter what their end goal is, what matters is that they need to make people buy in to the idea that capitalism is a dead end so that we give them a free hand in rearranging things according to their end goal. If the populace overwhelmingly starts clamoring for capitalist reform, they will have free reign as over what that will look like. They can very easily use their propaganda machine to make people believe that their new system is fairer and that hedge funds and such have no power anymore, while at same time keep the power behind these hedge funds intact. I don’t see any contradiction here. Ordo ab chao. Their bet is that whatever the magnitude of disruption to the system, they’ll be there to pick up the pieces and rearrange them to their liking.

From where I'm sitting the Gamestop Rebellion, and especially the reaction to it from the PTB, is not being generally perceived as indicating that markets need to be expanded and given even more power over our lives, but rather an indictment of the entire structure as a fundamentally fraudulent casino. I really don't see this playing into the hands of the Davos crew in the slightest.

Yes, indictment of the entire system. That’s what they’ve been saying all along. See how Klaus was a visionary from the get go? He told us capitalism was rotten, and here’s the proof. Good for us that Klaus thought about this very deeply and he has a solution. All we have to do is let him take the reigns.

 

[BHelmet]

Great stuff, y’all. Hard to know what is true. My take: Given that Trump has his supporters behind the scenes who are big dollar players, I don’t think everybody on Wall Street is on the same page/team. The reddit short squeeze could be a sort of “revenge for the steal“ Like a mafia revenge killing that is an accepted part of the code. If it started organically, It can certainly be co-opted and redirected just like Covid was according to the C’s. The psychopaths will always Try to turn the situation to their own benefit. They will lie all the way to the gallows professing their innocence and blaming others.

My guess: it started organically (even if manipulated from behind the scenes); got out of control to the point the PTB needed a TV time out to regroup. Not sure where it goes from here but the paradigm is this:

the more they try to exert control and the tighter the grip applied to humanity; the more things spin out of control and that becomes a feedback loop of chaotic amplification.

(Comments about precious metals are spot on. But JP Morgan, the prime metals manipulator, is too big To allow this to happen - the whole game would crash and I don’t think they are ready for that yet. Metals don’t go way up until hyperinflation would hit)

 

[Metrist]

As far as Reddit goes:

I go to reddit to check the game threads once in a while, and it seems like their threads are managed or frequented by commercial interests. Of course there is the product - the game itself - that everyone is on the thread to begin with... but they don't necessarily facilitate a community atmosphere and what one might expect of a gaming community. And that depends on the community itself to a degree, but I suspect that - as a marketing ploy, commercial interests want to throttle the enthusiasm of particular games: allow for favorites, but suppress discourse in general of any topic unless it is in accord with the overarching product: consumerism.

Towards that end, if you own the game, you are in the wrong place. You should be looking for another game. So, it is set up to suppress any sense of community, but retains enough to merely advertise and facilitate consumerism.

And this agenda, leaves gamers - a lot of which are young and impressionable - feeling as empty as they were before they bought the game, wanting for another.

As well, game design works toward that end - leaving you feeling empty. Not challenged; amused maybe, given some tasks to perform, but games are made stripped of chance. Games that are not really games, for if they were people would be content to play them over and over. The gaming industry can't afford to sell games.

There was a very hyped game that came out recently called Cyberpunk 2077, and it had been hyped for over a year. And the makers of the game previously had a successful game, and had a good reputation. So it was highly anticipated. Turns out, it was a flop. Not just bad, but lawsuit bad.

So, I was checking reddit to see what their Cyberpunk thread was doing, and it only had a xxx related thread that showed the game characters in pornographic pics.
So, it is as if they were entirely blocking any discourse of Cyberpunk 2077 except for this thread that had been around even before it was released. There were a couple other threads, but were almost empty.

So, reddit is not really a good place for consumers of games to go, because if you already bought the game, why are you here? I didn't buy Cyberpunk 2077 btw, they were behaving suspiciously in the days ahead of release that I wanted to see what people were saying about it.
So, I don't go to reddit very much.

 

[Niall]

That seems more like an accident of the fact that many were using Robinhood. Users doing things platforms didn't anticipate is hardly unheard of.

Yeah, the fact that Citadel owns a piece of Robinhood just speaks to the crushing irony of 'free market capitalism' as it exists today. Even if that hedge fund in particular didn't part-own that specific trading platform, one or another of Robinhood's powerful investors would have leaned on it to 'do as we say'.

On a sidenote, the saga is rich with 'name symbolism', if you think about it:

• 'GameStop', suggestive of 'game over', and more to the point; 'stop this casino capitalism game because now we are losing!'
• 'Robinhood' - a trading platform for the little guy... until it suddenly 'takes from the little guys to give back to the rich!'
• 'Citadel' - which literally means a 'fortress that commands a city', and in this case the LLC is "one of the leading market makers in the world," as described on its Wiki page.

 

[cope]

Trying to learn a bit about the whole option proces. The devil is in the details. It's Not Just Robinhood, Reddit Rebellion Has Clogged Entire Financial System's Plumbing | ZeroHedge

I’m simplifying, but because the buyer does not know who the seller is, the brokers for both buyer & seller use a 3rd company called DTCC to actually match & “clear” stock transactions, moving title from selling broker to buying broker while ensuring proceeds are moved on time.
If you look at that, there are different windows of credit risk.
1) RH vs. DTCC: Between transaction time (e.g., you buy @ 9:45am) and close of business (when net proceeds go to DTCC);
2) DTCC vs. DTCC: Between the time DTCC sends net proceeds & formally settles the transaction
3) Selling Broker vs. Selling Client: Selling Broker fronts its client credit for the proceeds immediately upon transaction;
4) DTCC vs. Selling Broker: DTCC owes the selling broker proceeds at day's end;
5) RH vs. RH Client: You deposit $10,000 in your RH account to open it. It’s a margin account. You start buying stocks for zero commission. You're not paying anything, so RH doesn't make any money on that…or do they? It's actually not particularly important to the story, but we all know RH’s real customer is not you - you are the product.
RH’s *real* customers are buyers of “order flow”, the largest of whom is Citadel (the same Citadel that bailed out Melvin Capital with Point72 on Monday)
Just because you aren’t RH’s real customer doesn’t mean they don’t care about you – they need you to be happy and active in order to continuously sell you to Citadel.
Citadel et al get a sneak peak at RH's order flow (ie, pending trade activity) & use that to “provide you liquidity” (ie, front-run your trade).
Citadel makes tiny amounts on each transaction (on average), slightly reducing the quality of your execution (on average), but allowing you to pay no explicit commission.
So now you own $GME stock in the margin account.

Actually, you don’t - RH owns the stock and simply passes through many of the rights of ownership to you, crediting you with quasi-ownership.

This is important because if RH failed, you would not “own” your stocks, per se. You would be a creditor with a claim against RH. This is a key risk of margin accounts.

See Lehman Brothers.

When you signed your customer agreement and terms of service, you gave RH the ability to take the stock you bought and lend it out to others to short. Depending on how “hard to borrow” that stock is, RH gets paid a variable rate for this stock loan.

While many brokers share the proceeds of stock lending w/ clients, RobinHood does not. RobinHood keeps it all.
This is a critical way RH gets paid. This payment can be VERY large on hard to borrow names.

• Lending $MSFT, which is easy to borrow, pays very little.
• Lending $GME, which is very hard-to-borrow may pay 50-100% (or more) per year. The “borrow rate” is set by the market and is frustratingly opaque. The rate gets reset daily as the difficulty of borrow goes fluctuates.

Shorting In practice:

Interesting stuff, very complicated. Low risks, big hazards.

 

[cope]

Trying to learn a bit about the whole option proces. The devil is in the details. It's Not Just Robinhood, Reddit Rebellion Has Clogged Entire Financial System's Plumbing | ZeroHedge

Interesting stuff, very complicated. Low risks, big hazards.

A little bit extra:
Quoting from the article:

“We are concerned about the ability of the market and the clearing systems, through the onslaught of orders, to continue to provide liquidity. And we are concerned about the financial viability of intermediaries and the clearing houses,” he added.
“The broker stands between these customers and the clearing house,” said Peterffy. “So when some option holders make money, the clearing house has to give us the money to give it to our customers...
"...while other option holders, sellers or buyers on their own side lose money we have to collect money from them and give it to the clearing house. If our customers are unable to pay for their losses we have to put up our own money.”

Interactive Brokers has $10 billion in equity to cover these payments if need be, but Peterffy said he can’t say the same about other brokers with full confidence.

If you made it this far, you will realize it is those last few sentences that say it all.

Worse yet, if you are a brokerage where your clients are:

a) zooming in on the same small set of securities that, all of which are correlated (e.g., GME, AMC, BB); and

b) all taking the same side of the trade,

then with each new trade, your brokerage is onboarding more of the same risk. The capital required for the broker to fulfill more and more of the same, without risking the business, is large.

Your clients are all taking the same side - collateral is flowing one way. You aren't receiving enough of the expected netting benefits from some of your clients taking the opposite side of the same trade.

It's almost like a casino's sports book where all the customers are betting the same team. Even as the line moves gets worse and worse, theoretically incentivizing bets on the other side, your clients just keep taking more of the same.

The House's risk is building & building.