Comment by Judgmentality | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Judgmentality | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

He didn't just say he "wasn't happy about it," he also said "I don't blame them." You're right, it's not apologizing, but it's exoneration.

I'm guessing you're aware of the trading halts in January and are arguing that's legal (or at least remain unconvinced it's illegal). Rather than have a long argument about whether or not brokers were legally entitled to restrict trading, I'll just concede as it really wasn't the point I wanted to make. I'm not a lawyer, there is nuance in the legal system, blah blah blah. I could go down the GME rabbit hole but nobody gives a shit. I think of it more like when a cop gets away with murder in our legal system. Did he commit a crime? Well, technically no, because our legal system said so - but I still feel comfortable calling him a criminal. Likewise, nobody in the US went to jail for the 2008 financial collapse, so I guess nobody committed any crimes.

But that's me moving the goalposts, making appeals to emotions, and just generally making a very weasely argument. My frustration is with people so willfully absolving others of guilt. I feel like the way to make the world a better place is by holding people accountable for their actions, instead of just chant it as some bullshit mantra at another dumb tech startup that provides no real value to anyone. Obviously other people have different perspectives and may not have seen any wrongdoing in what happened. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. And I'm allowed to think people are ignorant and morally bankrupt for the beliefs they hold.

So you're right, but I don't care because that's not what matters.

> He didn't just say he "wasn't happy about it," he also said "I don't blame them." You're right, it's not apologizing, but it's exoneration.

Insofar as "I don't think they're guilty", yes. This is a slightly lower bar than "I think they're innocent", because the former covers cases where you're unsure. Maybe the person you replied to actually thinks robinhood is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, but that can't be confirmed via his comments.

> I think of it more like when a cop gets away with murder in our legal system. Did he commit a crime? Well, technically no, because our legal system said so - but I still feel comfortable calling him a criminal

This analogy only works because you can presuppose that the cop is guilty. It breaks down when you can't. For instance if you only knew that he shot and killed someone. Maybe he acted in self defense (the actual kind).

My understanding of the situation was that robinhood was forced to restrict trading for meme stocks due to increased deposit requirements on them. If they couldn't come up with money to meet deposit requirements (due on the day of trade), then they have to halt trading. Meme stocks like GME had disproportionately higher deposit requirements, so restricting those stocks would allow them to continue operating with the smallest impact. If those stocks weren't restricted, they would have burned through their cash/credit they had (to meet deposit requirements) and would have to halt trading anyways.

Now, this is what robinhood is claiming, and I can't verify every single detail of this story (although some elements were independently confirmed, like the deposit requirements going up). Maybe robinhood had a boatload of cash/credit on hand and could have easily met the day/week's trading volume, or maybe it would have been close and they didn't want to risk it, but you think they should have went ahead anyways. In any case, the whole situation is less clear cut than the standard villain narrative of "they shut down trading because the hedge funds told them to". More importantly, there's enough wiggle room for differences of opinion that if someone says "I can't blame robinhood", you don't have to immediately accuse them of "willfully absolving others of guilt".

Your understanding of the situation is pretty good. I actually believe that Robinhood had to halt trading due to margin requirements, however that's leaving out a lot of context.

Immediately after halting trading, Robinhood's initial public statement was "we have full liquidity for any event and that is not the problem." This is where it starts to become fraudulent, because that contradicts what they later said. Timelines matter, details matter, and you are correct that the court of law has its place for this sort of thing. I'm convinced they were willfully lying at this point, but it would take a long time to explain why in a convincing manner (so I don't blame you for not believing me here).

Now afterwards is when shit gets weirder, but the GME rabbit hole is really deep and the signal to noise ratio is atrocious. There is some good data from Robinhood's S1 filing though. For their transaction-based business, Citadel made up 27% of their revenue - which is significantly higher than anyone else. And last quarter 81% of Robinhood's revenue was for PFOF, payment for order flow.

I agree with you this should go to court and I look forward to it. I could provide you with plenty more data and evidence, but it's lots of little pieces and admittedly a lot of it is circumstantial. In other words, I'm doing a shitty job explaining my side and you don't have much reason to believe me.

I owe you and the person I originally responded to an apology.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com