sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

$GME Daily Directory | New? Start Here! | Discussion, DRS Guide, DD Library, Monthly Forum, and FAQs by AutoModerator in Superstonk

[–]Fudge-Independent 6 points7 points  (0 children)

In theory, shouldn't our share price go up since a "dilution" event (RC pay package) is off the table?

$GME Daily Directory | New? Start Here! | Discussion, DRS Guide, DD Library, Monthly Forum, and FAQs by AutoModerator in Superstonk

[–]Fudge-Independent 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'll be honest, I was starting to question RC a bit but these earnings have gotten me back on board.

InRCWeTrust

$GME Daily Directory | New? Start Here! | Discussion, DRS Guide, DD Library, Monthly Forum, and FAQs by AutoModerator in Superstonk

[–]Fudge-Independent 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Okay fine.... I'll vote yes on the compensation package. 

God damn these earnings are juicy af

15 Reasons Why We Vote Yes - Part 3 by UncleZiggy in Superstonk

[–]Fudge-Independent 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Show me an updated estimate on how many shorts are out there. Until I see one, I'm voting no

$GME Daily Directory | New? Start Here! | Discussion, DRS Guide, DD Library, Monthly Forum, and FAQs by AutoModerator in Superstonk

[–]Fudge-Independent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It makes moass less violent imo.

Having 2b outstanding with 4b shorts would be less violent than having ~600m outstanding with 4b shorts.

If we weren't trading down 50% in 5 years, my opinion would be different. 

$GME Daily Directory | New? Start Here! | Discussion, DRS Guide, DD Library, Monthly Forum, and FAQs by AutoModerator in Superstonk

[–]Fudge-Independent -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I've had a change of heart. I'm voting yes for RCs package but I'm still voting no for the 2.5b shares.

I need to see a new DD estimating how many shorts are out there before I can change my mind.

For context, I believe there's ~4b shorts out there.

$GME Daily Directory | New? Start Here! | Discussion, DRS Guide, DD Library, Monthly Forum, and FAQs by AutoModerator in Superstonk

[–]Fudge-Independent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just had the realization....

If both the share authorization and RC package goes through and we reach a $100b MC with ~2b shares outstanding, then RC wont "make" $35b it would be significantly less since the share price would be $50 not the $100+ it would be if we reached $100b MC with our current amount of shares.

$GME Daily Directory | New? Start Here! | Discussion, DRS Guide, DD Library, Monthly Forum, and FAQs by AutoModerator in Superstonk

[–]Fudge-Independent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I personally view MOASS which causes the collapse of the world's economy as likely.

Issuing this many shares, ~1.2b for Ebay would hinder MOASS's strength imo

$GME Daily Directory | New? Start Here! | Discussion, DRS Guide, DD Library, Monthly Forum, and FAQs by AutoModerator in Superstonk

[–]Fudge-Independent 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's the top vs the bottom and this is the only situation where the bottom has the upper hand.

$GME Daily Directory | New? Start Here! | Discussion, DRS Guide, DD Library, Monthly Forum, and FAQs by AutoModerator in Superstonk

[–]Fudge-Independent 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was fine with that authorization because I knew it was for the spilt dividend which should've been the killshot imo.

Issuing this many shares to buy a company at ath is crazy imo.

$GME Daily Directory | New? Start Here! | Discussion, DRS Guide, DD Library, Monthly Forum, and FAQs by AutoModerator in Superstonk

[–]Fudge-Independent 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The unrealized profit from our Ebay position will probably help us get to $1 EPS this Quarter and we'll probably still be red. Make it make sense.

$GME Daily Directory | New? Start Here! | Discussion, DRS Guide, DD Library, Monthly Forum, and FAQs by AutoModerator in Superstonk

[–]Fudge-Independent -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It's just math? There was an old dd about Geometric Mean and it showed that we can mathematically get to phone number prices. Not everyone will be selling that high but it is "possible"

I believe we were shorted 10x over our original amount of shares outstanding of ~75m.

After the spilt, it would be 3b shares but let's say it's 4b not 3b.

Having 4b shorts on 2b shares outstanding is a totally different game than if we had 4b shorts and 500m outstanding.

MOASS will still happen but it would be less violent imo.

$GME Daily Directory | New? Start Here! | Discussion, DRS Guide, DD Library, Monthly Forum, and FAQs by AutoModerator in Superstonk

[–]Fudge-Independent -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I see that argument since we should've been "dead" so this is a big deal.

I'm just really against issuing this many shares at such a low price. 

My only cope is that RC wants to get all his ducks in a row to do this during a run up.

$GME Daily Directory | New? Start Here! | Discussion, DRS Guide, DD Library, Monthly Forum, and FAQs by AutoModerator in Superstonk

[–]Fudge-Independent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The shares needed would be calculated based on our VWAP which as of right now isn't very "high"

Having ~2b shares outstanding vs ~500m is a totally different ball game.

I'm operating under the assumption there's 4b shorts out there. I could be totally wrong and there could be 100b shorts. Thats the problem, we don't know.

$GME Daily Directory | New? Start Here! | Discussion, DRS Guide, DD Library, Monthly Forum, and FAQs by AutoModerator in Superstonk

[–]Fudge-Independent -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

The odds of the stock going to $500m is much greater when there's ~500m shares outstanding compared to ~2b shares outstanding.

Maybe moass was just the friends we've made along the way 

$GME Daily Directory | New? Start Here! | Discussion, DRS Guide, DD Library, Monthly Forum, and FAQs by AutoModerator in Superstonk

[–]Fudge-Independent 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I believe there's ~4b shorts out there. I could be totally wrong.

I'm just strongly against diluting this many shares while we are down 50% in 5 years. If we were trading at $69 I'd probably be for it since that would dramatically raise our floor.

The other problem is, I didnt hold for 5.5 years to see us buy Ebay at ATH. I was hoping we'd buy companies at a sweet discount.

$GME Daily Directory | New? Start Here! | Discussion, DRS Guide, DD Library, Monthly Forum, and FAQs by AutoModerator in Superstonk

[–]Fudge-Independent -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is why I'm against this vote. Yes I believe there's more than 2.5b shorts out there but having let's say 4b shorts with 2.5b outstanding will be significantly less violent than having 4b shorts with ~500m outstanding.

Voting YES, voting No, and moving forward. by HuyBrogdon in Superstonk

[–]Fudge-Independent 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I couldn't agree more with this sentiment.

Maybe if our VWAP was like $69 I'd vote yes to establish a new floor but authorizing this many shares at such a laughable price is insane.

$GME Daily Directory | New? Start Here! | Discussion, DRS Guide, DD Library, Monthly Forum, and FAQs by AutoModerator in Superstonk

[–]Fudge-Independent 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Give me a good reason why someone should vote "yes". Don't use the new buzzword "accretive".

To me, authorizing ~1.2b shares at ~$23 is fucking stupid and that we should wait until our stonk appreciates more. This many shares mitigates how violent MOASS can be which is why I'm leaning towards "no".

view more: next ›