However, when Robinhood et al halted only buys but not sells, they opened themselves up to the "corrupt elite" interpretation that Wall Street manipulated the market. There's almost no question that the effects of the unidirectional freeze were to drive down the price, thereby helping the shorts. Sure, Robinhood would have been not as well off as they were when they did allow sells, but they'd at least not be directly contributing to manipulation.
Further, the article indicates DTCC increased deposit requirements. What is their procedure for making this decision? Are they rule/process-based or discretionary?
I ask because DRCC seems like a singular bottleneck in this system, a single point of failure. It's a bit odd to see the argument that it's not a "conspiracy" (though I'd prefer "corrupt collusion") because one organization all parties depend on made a discretionary decision that caused most participants to take an action benefitting the people most likely to be well-connected to said organization.
It remains to be seen whether facts bear out any of these hypotheses. Facts do bear out that Robinhood lied about their cash flow situation. But I do find it peculiar that we're getting this explanation three days after the fact. "Government rules require vastly increased deposits due to the unprecedented conditions yada yada yada" would have been a better message than the BS they did end up sending out, and it's a perfect excuse to pass the buck.