And what market maker has not been fined for rule violations before? How is this pertinent?
We know the DTCC raised the collateral requirements by 30x for GME. Does Ken Griffin own the DTCC too?
We know Robinhood suffered a cash crunch and was required to raise an emergency $1B. We know that every GME purchase by its customers increased its collateral requirements, and every sale reduced them.
Don’t all known facts directly explain Robinhoods behavior? Wouldn’t Robinhood simply move to another market maker if Citadel got out of line?
Does anyone know that Ken Griffin made any demands of Robinhood?
So why are we pursuing baseless conspiracy theories when the facts already explain the behavior?
Citadel is a hedge fund and market maker. Its success has vaulted founder Ken Griffin to a net worth of more than $20 billion. Technically, the two sides of Citadel (hedge fund / market maker) are split into two separate arms — but they are both under one parent company and owned by Ken Griffin.
Comments
So why didn’t you detail this?
And what market maker has not been fined for rule violations before? How is this pertinent?
We know the DTCC raised the collateral requirements by 30x for GME. Does Ken Griffin own the DTCC too?
We know Robinhood suffered a cash crunch and was required to raise an emergency $1B. We know that every GME purchase by its customers increased its collateral requirements, and every sale reduced them.
Don’t all known facts directly explain Robinhoods behavior? Wouldn’t Robinhood simply move to another market maker if Citadel got out of line?
Does anyone know that Ken Griffin made any demands of Robinhood?
So why are we pursuing baseless conspiracy theories when the facts already explain the behavior?
I’m not on WSB, so maybe I haven’t seen a discussion of this. But I have been wondering why Citadel bailed out Melvin. I can think of a few scenarios:
A) Charity (haha)
B) Lose this money now to prevent losing even more money later on
C) Make a huge return on the equity stake/loan/whatever-it-was-Citadel-got
Maybe it’s irrelevant, but it’s been something I haven’t quite figured out.
The article mentions:
You added this after the fact. The only scam is this poorly researched blog entry.
That's not true. That line was in the article before this was posted (not by me) on HN.
No it was added specifically after I made my first comment about it here.