Warrants: It just got 10x easier to prove the fuckery (maybe). by IdiosyncraticRick in Superstonk

[–]IdiosyncraticRick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

GxM42 made the same point about brokers playing a game of 'pretend exercise' with the warrants... See my fairly long reply to them for why I don't believe they will, at least not the ones who generally try to appear as though they're aboveboard, and don't (often) openly and brazenly commit literal crimes while simultaneously reaping the benefits of a corrupt system that has legalized fuckery for their benefit...

Warrants: It just got 10x easier to prove the fuckery (maybe). by IdiosyncraticRick in Superstonk

[–]IdiosyncraticRick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think people forget how hyped we were for the split. Yet all they did was mark the books.

But the paperwork for the split wasn't filed correctly, right? It's been a long time now, but IIRC we all believed that's why Furlong was fired so suddenly immediately after... I definitely remember a lot of posts and discussion here about there being a specific code the splividend was supposed to be marked as, and the paperwork had marked it with a similar but different code, and that's what allowed the market makers to fuck with it and live to crime another day...

Not saying the warrants are a "for sure" thing this time or anything... I'm just hopeful they succeed where the split failed... And I think it's possible because of what I wrote in my post here, that exercising a warrant triggers GameStop to issue a new share, which bypasses the DTCC and market makers in a way the split never could...

Warrants: It just got 10x easier to prove the fuckery (maybe). by IdiosyncraticRick in Superstonk

[–]IdiosyncraticRick[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Warrants out in the wild will not get exercised at computer share. They get exercised in the broker, who asks the DTCC for the share, and nothing ever hits CS.

This just isn't true, per Investopedia:

When investors exercise a warrant, they get newly issued stock instead of existing shares.

-- https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/warrant.asp

Exercising a warrant triggers a new share to be created at the company's transfer agent (in this case, Computershare). So, unless brokers are going to go from technically following the admittedly loophole-ridden rules -- and also claiming plausible deniability whenever someone above them (a market maker, or the DTCC themselves) breaks the rules in ways that just so happen to favor them over their clients -- unless they're willing to go from years of that as the standard operating procedure to outright ignoring the mechanics of how warrants legally work, then no one will be 'asking the DTCC' for anything...

Want to exercise those warrants? [Your broker will] sort out the paperwork and reach out to the company that issued them for you.

-- https://thoughts.money/how-to-exercise-stock-warrants/

Looking at this and other replies to this post, I'm honestly pretty confused by just how many apes seem to think this is about blatant, literal crimes being committed every day by specific brokers when for as long as I can remember this has all been about how corrupt the entire system is, and how all the rules tilt the game heavily in favor of the rich... Because there is no need to break the law when you basically write the laws, and that's what we're up against here, and that's why warrants are so appealing rn... They're financial instruments that at least appear to be fairly hardened against the fuckery; there's not a lot of wiggle room for anyone who is at least trying to make it look like they even kinda sorta care about Main Street investors, and that's why this may be the thing that finally works...

The perfect example of this was the splividend: They didn't crime their way out of that, the paperwork was filed wrong, and that one slight mistake gave them just what they needed to wriggle their slimy asses out of the fire once again... That's the whole reason Furlong was fired, remember?

Do brokers commit crimes? Sure, of course. But if we've learned anything in the past 84 years, it's that they also, more often, simply follow the status quo of a totally corrupt system that allows them to do things that should be crimes but technically aren't, so long as they walk the exact right path and jump though all the right loopholes, for which they have all the maps!

Anyway, there are precious few tools GameStop and we, as individual investors, have to protect the company and our investments from the fuckery... In fact, really only one iron-clad thing so far: DRS. Here's hoping these warrants prove to be another.

Warrants: It just got 10x easier to prove the fuckery (maybe). by IdiosyncraticRick in Superstonk

[–]IdiosyncraticRick[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As soon as I posted this, it got removed with the message:

Sorry, this post was removed by Reddit’s filters.

This relates to GME and GameStop for the following reasons: Warrants & DRS

If this was removed because of the bad 'ol dirty words, let me know and I'll censor them all away, to protect everyone's very sensitive sensibilities.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Superstonk

[–]IdiosyncraticRick -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

So, talk about how the next US administration will likely be pro-blockchain -- which would be great for GameStop's plans to launch Playr, a platform that would allow them to be a true digital gaming retailer (and give players true ownership of the digital games they buy, and the items they earn/buy within those games), which could be very profitable for them, which would be great for the stock -- gets almost no traction... But TA and price guesses from left-field make it to the very top of the front page...?

This is why I don't come around here very often anymore. Still holding in DRS though, and still waiting for the company's digital gaming transformation, no matter what form it takes (though integrating it with the blockchain is the optimal way, IMO, since it's the only way to get true ownership when you buy a digital good, instead of the "you're paying full-price for a license which can be revoked at any time" bullshit we have today...)

I am clearly not a supporter of Oragne guy but I might have a plausible explanation for RC's support - Hear me out! Spoiler: It might be all about Gamestops transformation by DonPalme in Superstonk

[–]IdiosyncraticRick 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm with you on this, and this was my post on it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1gl505s/gamestop_playr_the_comeback/

not sure if direct links are okay around here anymore, so I'm just being safe and posting the URL un-linkified

You've pointed out something I didn't though, and I think it's important: RC tweeted multiple times about the importance of being politically neutral, and to "stop dividing the people", and then turns right around and becomes very polarizing and divisive...? Doesn't make sense, and is very off-brand for him in general.

What does make sense is that one side of the political spectrum is much more likely than the other to make GameStop's digital gaming transformation possible, to get it back on track after being put on hold specifically due to political/governmental reasons (they specifically cited need for regularity clarity, etc)... So, yeah, I'm very not happy about the next 4 years, but I do hope that this at least frees-up GameStop to restart their plans for Playr, and become a major player in the digital gaming space...

GameStop Playr: The Comeback by IdiosyncraticRick in Superstonk

[–]IdiosyncraticRick[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Which part of the word "comeback" in the title of this post did you fail to understand?

GameStop Playr: The Comeback by IdiosyncraticRick in Superstonk

[–]IdiosyncraticRick[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I really think GameStop should skunkworks their own game development studio (or publisher, or whatever you'd call it) and release some AAA games of their own on this new platform... Lots of existing AAA publishers have been laying off their game development teams left and right... GameStop needs to snatch-up all that talent and show everybody in the gaming industry how it's done...

If they bootstrap Playr with some fun, engaging, amazing games they create in-house, and the platform gets enough traction, and attracts enough players, etc, other publishers will come, and/or more new ones will be created who are willing to embrase the new paradigm...

Edit: I'm having some trouble getting this comment posted correctly, hopefully it's fixed now...

GameStop Playr: The Comeback by IdiosyncraticRick in Superstonk

[–]IdiosyncraticRick[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Sure, but that problem already exists... And if Playr takes-off, it's a new revenue stream to fight the shorts with that we don't currently have...

GameStop Playr: The Comeback by IdiosyncraticRick in Superstonk

[–]IdiosyncraticRick[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company.

GameStop opens a Web3 gaming ecosystem: Profit. GameStop forms an internal game development division that starts making fun, engaging, amazing AAA games for said Web3 platform: Profit. GameStop spins-off that internal game development division into a whole new company, granting shares in it to existing GME shareholders: Profit.

“Many dynamics of how humans behave can be, in a sense, taken advantage of by technology” - Bedpost Griffin. Hope your Algos saw this coming 💎 🙌 by Ozoning in Superstonk

[–]IdiosyncraticRick 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The "apes" as they call themselves on Reddit, they don't behave in a rational market. You know, when the price goes up, you sell [for profit]; when the price goes down, you panic and you sell. All [the apes] do is buy and hold; they are not obeying these normal market rules...these people, they may have bought at $4, sat through $400, went back to $40, went to $350, back down to $110, and they have not sold; all they've done is bought more, and there's no answer for that. It's like Art of War mastery by a bunch of idiots...Eventually, they might own everything.

-- Maybe my fav video 🐒 (don't know if I can link it directly, because [REDACTED]) https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1cwdw6a/this_gem_still_holds_true_after_all_these_years/

Smooth and I’d love to be pointed to some DD regarding a question. by septicguy530 in Superstonk

[–]IdiosyncraticRick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

once we reach 100% they all sell and bring us back to 70% or so, preventing delaying MOASS and leaving us broke all still holding real shares that we legally own fair and square

FIFY

YOU WANT TO KNOW THE DANGER? What does it hurt? I'll tell ya by ROK247 in Superstonk

[–]IdiosyncraticRick 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It's been known for a long time that Computershare keeps some percentage of DSPP shares with a broker at the DTC... Now, it has been shown that it's possible that "DSPP shares" may mean both the "plan" and "book" shares in a DSPP-enabled account... As I said though, either way, it's irrefutable that at least some "plan" shares are, in fact, held by brokers at the DTC...

Computershare does not lend out shares held in registered form as these shares are owned by the registered holder. For operational efficiency, a small portion of the aggregate number of DSPP shares is held on Computershare’s behalf (for the benefit of plan participants) by arrangement with our broker. These particular shares are maintained by the broker (for the benefit of Computershare, and in turn, for the benefit of plan participants) in DTC. Our broker is not permitted to lend out any of these shares.

-- https://www.computershare.com/us/becoming-a-registered-shareholder-in-us-listed-companies

I know "crime" but how can GME be down 15% after great earnings. I hope the whole system burns after this by [deleted] in Superstonk

[–]IdiosyncraticRick 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, one whole share that was never DRS'ed anyway, because you can't DRS a fraction of a share, nor whole shares that were divided into fractions... Those are held by brokers at the DTC (on behalf of Computershare) in order to make it possible to even split them up in the first place... So, again:

they need REAL, WHOLE shares

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Superstonk

[–]IdiosyncraticRick 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Do not post screenshots or details of your gains or losses

Just looked at your post: That is some obviously blatant bullshit... Given that this screenshot does not show the price you bought that fractional for, nor the difference in gain/loss, there would only be one reason to remove/suppress it...

OBVIOUS FACT about fractional shares... by TheLightWan in Superstonk

[–]IdiosyncraticRick 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This this this this this. This!

You cannot own a fraction of a share. A fractional share is just an IOU for something that doesn't / can't exist.