[mdoms]

With a $3.4b warchest this entirely undermines their (plainly untrue) narrative about restricting the stock due to capital requirements.

[crazygringo]

Um, no. The "war chest" is in order to meet the capital requirements. It says so right in the article.

I mean, you think the owners are diluting their ownership just for fun? Nobody does that.

Also why do you think the capital requirements are untrue? There have been plenty of factual articles describing the precise increase that was required and how it was spread across different trading platforms.

It's not speculation, it's well-document fact.

[mdoms]

If they have the capital why aren't the opening up trading on GME fully? I'm not saying the capital requirements aren't real, I'm saying that's not the complete and honest explanation for why they're restricting trading on GME. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see their conflict of interest here.

[crazygringo]

Because volatility is changing daily, risk estimates are changing daily, and capital requirements are changing daily.

Do you have any proof that's not the complete and honest explanation? Because it sure seems sufficient to me, nothing further needed.

And please refrain from derogatory comments like "anyone with two brain cells can see" here on HN. It's against the guidelines.

[swampthing]

Having capital is not binary. It's not like once you meet a magic threshold, you can then allow for unlimited trades. Robinhood raised $1B on Thursday, then another $2.5B or whatever today. By your logic, they had the capital on Thursday, so why would they need to raise more today?

[ZephyrBlu]

Or maybe they actually need that much capital because of the volume of trades going through their platform.