Consider this as a way to combat negative comments. Also i am inviting you to counter it. Just remember by doing so you are also countering the ever changing msm negative narrative, so technically you're proving the original thesis correct anyway ;)

Check my history. Notice how often I've asked questions like this to negative comments. Notice how there is no response or no evidence provided to me. Only one time in my 2 years has a user responded with a good point but that's the sort of thing you can never prove as retail.

Cases to consider:

1) Debt.

2) Ape conversions to Amc.

3) "AA is lying to retail".

4) Amc is the hedge to Gamestock.

****

1)Debt

A) Debt is wiped out due to dilution/recombining the free ape shares we got. Then the options for amc to be able to fight the shorts increases.

It also annihilates the shfs narrative so far.

Thus (A) is a positive outcome.

B) Dilution does nothing, we are still in the hodl position even though msm keeps wanting us to sell.

Remember, the original thesis is - they need us to sell. Msm is filled with negative stories that are misleading (Google the ones about cineworld and compared to Amc especially)

Why make all this effort if dilution is bad? Even the shilly comments are ALL AGAINST DILUTION.

Thus (B) on it's own is more positive unless people decide to sell. Otherwise the shills are actually trying to help us? Since when does a mass of people try to help you spend your money?

****

2) Ape Conversion:

Percentage owned by retail is to be considered here. Does it increase closer to 100% or not?

We went from 80% to over 90% last year for retail ownership.

Dividend happens and we get free ape shares.

Those shares can now be added onto your original shares via reverse split.

The percentage owned should now be higher, closer to 100% which (A) and (B) below support.

A) the float size shrinks, this is great.

B) the float increases by 1/10 ish but the amount of ape which was equal to 90% of the float is now compressed to 10% ish, we would be close to 100% (unless people sold their ape)

C) it's all a lie. Aa is lying to us.

****

3)Aa is lying to us?

Let's explore this one!

IF TRUE;

Lying to let wall st win. Board and AA - sell our shares and let the company die. Do nothing to help it. Do nothing to make shfs lives harder..... (See the above points for counters here!!)

Also think about it - why do a split, it only makes this risk to shfs higher. More effort to contain and lie about (see stories and shilly comments)

Why do a reverse split and potentially increase the retail ownership?

Why push the debt death date from 2021 to 2023 then to 2025?

NONE OF THIS ARGUMENT MAKES SENSE!

So it seems false

Thus, he is not lying.

****

4) Finally, Amc is the hedge to game.

Ok so assume this is true.

I am a hedge fund and I am long amc. Retail also owns high percentages too.

A) let it squeeze hard. Price goes up - I can sell now I make shit tonnes of money whilst retail holds and price drops. I buy in again.

Or

I Can let it rise super high and not sell, so it acts as collateral. (because that's the hedge theory)

Now if Gamestock rises too, I can hold my collateral until they sell, and still be super rich.

Ie this case shows I must let the price squeeze.

B) I keep the AMC price suppressed even though it's my hedge. If i let it rise I'd make money to help me suppress the other stock (contradiction! Because I'm surpressing it)

By some unexplained magic the price of Amc suppresses another stock. I spend money to surpress both? Makes no sense. Contradiction.

The only way to surpress the other stock is to use collateral or money - I can get money by letting AmC run.... But i haven't?

Thus (4) Hedge theory makes zero sense if amc doesn't squeeze.