[daniel-cussen]

> robinhood didn't lock trading - or at the very least, they were far from the only brokerage to do so and had very little choice in the matter.

So why did you start out saying they didn't lock trading...to then say they did lock trading? Do some people will only read the first fifteen words of your post? Like are you aiming to fill the air with positive-sounding sounds that make Robinhood sound good? You think we don't think?

Sometimes contradiction is good and helps with nuance and is meaningful. Here it's just gross, like I don't even have to quote two separate parts of what you said. But since I am entitled to quoting you twice to argue with you, but need no other piece of evidence, I'll just quote that same passage again.

> robinhood didn't lock trading - or at the very least, they were far from the only brokerage to do so and had very little choice in the matter.

[colinmhayes]

I don't think it's fair to say robinhood locked trading here. The brokers increased the amount of collateral needed to buy GME and robinhood didn't have the money. They were unable to buy more GME until their loan came through

[kareemsabri]

That's not quite correct. The clearing house demanded more collateral from Robinhood based on market volatility, not specifically to trade GME. Robinhood negotiated less collateral by locking buying of GME, a highly volatile security. There is no other way to say it than that Robinhood locked trading of GME.

[daniel-cussen]

That's purely Robinhood's problem. And in fact that's because they weren't actually buying the shares like they said they were, otherwise there would be no problem.

If they locked trading...get this...this is my logic...then it is in fact FAIR to SAY that they locked trading. It's only complex because they were cheating their customers, hence the decline of the platform, hence this chain of posts, hence the end of this sentence having spoken my piece.