I'm going to keep it to the cold hard facts here using nothing but basic property transaction principles everyone learns in their first 2 years of law school.

A lot of DRS is premised on the idea that a share/IOU in a broker is “not real” whereas a share in ComputerShare is “real”. This rests on the faulty assumption that your property interest arises at some point after you make a transaction. This is just straight up not true.

Your property interest is invisible, and it accrues at the time you make the transaction, granted by the Uniform Commercial Code.

UCC 9

This article applies to a transaction, regardless of its form, that creates a security interest in personal property by contract.

Your property interest is only represented by a share. A share is just a bundle of rights you can trade as money. Your broker’s terms and conditions cannot contract around this principle.

Why is it important to know that your property interest arises at the time you exchange money for it?

Because when you DRS, that's what you're transferring. Your property interest. It doesn’t change to a new owner. You just go from being an indirect owner to a direct owner. You were still the ultimate owner the whole time.

The DRS campaign also grossly misstates what would happen in a broker doomsday scenario, when this becomes a deeper secured transactions question and we need to find out who the highest creditor is.

Let’s say you keep all your shares in a broker, and they delete your shares. Who owns the property interest? STILL YOU. You can delete a representation of the property interest, but you can’t delete the interest itself. Your property interest arises simply by virtue of having made a transaction.

Let’s say you keep your shares in a broker and then one day MOASS happens and your broker collapses. What do you do? Well you still have transferable rights… so you’d just transfer them… it’s not like all broker services stop just because they go bankrupt. You’d have to transfer out of CS anyway if you wanted full access to immediate trading capabilities during MOASS.

And at the time of your broker’s bankruptcy, who is the highest creditor that can claim a right to the shares you bought? STILL YOU, the ultimate owner of the indirect interest.

MOREOVER

A lot of the DRS hype at the beginning was premised on “exposing the crime” by locking the float. The crime is price manipulation, or more specifically, price fixing. Naked shorting isn’t a crime. Using naked shorts to lower the price is. DRS does nothing to address all the different means available to a hedge fund & market maker to fix price. Price fixing is actively devaluing the thing you’re trying so hard to get everyone to DRS.

Relatedly-- everyone was so quick to scream “the DTCC committed international securities fraud!” which is premised on yet another misunderstanding of the law. Fraud is an inducement to buy something based on a misrepresentation, like when Andrew Left told investors he was long on certain stocks, causing people to buy. The DTCC did not induce you to buy GME with any kind of representation of how they'd handle the splividend. The DTCC doesn't even want you buying GME in the first place.

I've noticed that people were real quick to hop on “exposing the crime” and “international securities fraud”, but when presented with the concrete crime of price fixing, no excitement.

Where’s that same energy we had for the other crimes? This crime (price fixing) actually has a statute and a ton of relevant case law defining it as a crime. Why aren’t we as quick to spread that one? Unless it’s the one that somebody doesn’t want to spread…

I exist to be a thorn on Citadel’s side. Since we can't crosspost, you can check the posts on my profile for a few legal resources I put together, which I would use if I was trying to sue Citadel.

• "How to build a price fixing argument" going over the IRAC structure of legal arguments by breaking down the DOJ’s arguments against RealPage and applying them to GME. Also summarizes some price fixing cases.
• "What's the opposite of free price discovery?" which includes two written samples of price fixing evidence you can use to submit to the DOJ. Sample 1 is about banging the close on August 28th. Sample 2 argues that the "time traveling article" from 2021 and the halt from DFV's live stream in June both indicate instances of herding behavior from algorithms trying to get ahead of news. Goes over United States v. Socony-Vacuum and the LIBOR scandal to show the use of a common formula fact pattern for price fixing.
  • 🚀🍄💥 Is what happened on Mario Day, the day of the time traveling article. I think this is related to 🎤🔥💥 because it indicates bearish news leading to a crash.
  • How would you "flip mode" this? My answer would be to hire DFV to make investments for GameStop since the algorithm sees any DFV YOLO post or investment filing as bullish news
• "Don't get sidetracked with the SEC! The DOJ and FTC are BEGGING you to send them evidence of algorithmically based price fixing" going over how to submit evidence and why this evolution of price fixing by AI is so important