[bumblelad]

You can skim the S-1 and see why that is problematic.

In 2020, 34% of their revenue came from Citadel. 75% of their entire revenue stream comes from forwarding their clients' orders to one of FOUR market makers like Citadel. This practice in and of itself is contentious, and they readily admit this in their risk factors section of the filing.

They also readily acknowledge the absolute thrashing they would receive financially if even one of the four market makers decide to not do business with them.

Of these four, Citadel is the largest.

[tptacek]

Is your suggestion that PFOF is "contentious"? Because practically all retail traders are customers of brokers that get rebated for sending trades to firms like Citadel. Even IB does on their normal plans. Message board people believe a lot of weird things about how markets work.

[bumblelad]

It's contentious in the sense that there's a non-zero probability that the SEC could step in and ban that practice, which is something that Robinhood outlines in their S-1 filing under the risks section.

>Message board people believe a lot of weird things about how markets work.

Message board people also love reading comments and not looking at the articles they're typically commenting about.

[thedudeabides5]

I’m sure if they could sell that order flow to 1000 institutions, they would