It's a few short sellers who got wrecked. The rest of the institutional guys are fine and don't care about this except for how much money they're making.
Yes, that must be why trades are restricted, wsb got infested with bots and banned from discord, and the media is in full shit flinging mode against wsb.
I have been in frequent touch with my wall street friends. Many are "fine" and the general feeling is that long term this will get sorted out, but many of them took some hits and are watching this very carefully. Many firms had to move out of long positions to get capital, so this had trickle down effects elsewhere in the market.
Things that undermine the credibility of the market and bring congressional oversight hearings into the conversation aren't just being ignored.
Even they agree, it feels like "something is off" but who might be doing bad things is still unclear to everyone, even guys I know with 15+ years in the industry.
The reason trading was stopped is that if a stock price suddenly gaps then the retail investors can lose more money than they have in their accounts. Then the brokerage or their clearing firm have to take the losses. They are not willing to do so, so they stop allowing trading. The brokerages are not somehow colluding to make hedge funds money, they are just trying to make sure that they do not lose money themselves.
I don't really have an opinion on whether the GME thing is a pump and dump scam, or a real opportunity to enforce a classic "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" lesson to those shorting these stocks.
But I do have a real issue with removing just the "buy" side of the equation. Price is always a function of supply and demand, and I don't understand how anyone could justify halting just buy orders. The obvious impact of artificially reduced demand is that the price will drop.
Further - if this price drop was designed to protect these firms from possible losses (and I don't really care whether that loss was by allowing unvetted shorts by investors who don't have the capital to cover, or whether it was collusion to protect other parties) then I still don't see how you can reasonably come to a conclusion that looks good for these firms here - They're manipulating stock prices to avoid losses.
Robinhood would have legal liability for aiding and abetting an illegal short squeeze had they continued.
The illegal part is a scheme to collude and manipulate the availability or price of the stock to intentionally cause a short squeeze. I'm not entirely sure I agree with you that posts like that are "collusion" (Cornell def here is interesting as a refresher - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collusion), but I can certainly concede there's plenty of shades of gray here.