Research entry · Not admitted

GameStop

GameStop trading restrictions, clearing obligations and the limits of motive inferences in the documentary record.

Built from a research dossier; admission and independent checking of this account are not supplied in this view. Source attribution does not establish independent corroboration. Read the full dossier · Inspect

On January 28, 2021, Robinhood restricted purchases of GameStop and other securities during a period of exceptional trading. The SEC staff report, participant testimony and later committee accounts describe trading, clearing requirements and decisions from different positions. Reading them together requires separating constraints on the broker’s decision from explanations of its motive. A documented obligation and a participant’s explanation are different kinds of evidence.

This research dossier separates a total collateral requirement from additional cash demanded, deposits already held, a revised requirement and cash actually paid. It also keeps differently dated security lists and restriction notices apart. The accounts differ on the additional deposit and requirement terminology; a waived premium is not automatically a proven payment reduction. Readers can compare the attributed accounts and identify what would resolve a disagreement without treating every source as independent confirmation or every restriction as proof of one motive.

Sources behind this account

All 15 source candidates →

Wikipedia comparison edition· GameStop short squeezeOpen (opens in a new tab)
SEC staff report· Staff Report on Equity and Options Market Structure Conditions in Early 2021Open (opens in a new tab)
Vladimir Tenev written testimony· Testimony of Vladimir Tenev, Robinhood Markets, Inc.· Date February 18, 2021 hearing.Open (opens in a new tab)
Kenneth Griffin written testimony Open (opens in a new tab)

Showing 4 of 15; the full list follows the account.

Carried research candidates; listing does not admit a Source or establish support.

Contents and source readers

15 research source candidates. Only recorded, eligible public Source destinations appear above.

Scope

The common name is 2021 GameStop short squeeze. That name does not itself settle C5's causal proposition. The bounded event is the January market movement and the restriction/clearing chronology; the documentary continuation includes the February and May 2021 hearings, the October 2021 SEC staff report, the June 2022 committee positions and the separately identified antitrust orders and appellate opinion.

GameStop, Robinhood, NSCC, DTCC, Citadel Securities, hedge funds, the witnesses, SEC staff and the Commission are not interchangeable actors. A statement by a participant is that participant's account. A staff report is not automatically a Commission rule or judgment. A court's pleading-sufficiency decision is not an omniscient account of motive.

Key distinctions

Name versus cause: “GameStop short squeeze” names the event; that label does not establish that short covering sustained the entire price increase or decide C5.
Occurrence versus explanation: C1's observable prices and trading volume do not establish C3's motive or C5's sustaining mechanism.
Short-interest measures: 122.97% of public float, 109.26% of shares outstanding and a separately dated approximately 140% comparison have different denominators, dates and representations.
Total versus net requirement: Tenev's approximately $3.7 billion initial total collateral requirement is not the approximately $3 billion additional amount net due after previously deposited funds.

Show 10 more

Already deposited versus required: The approximately $696 million described as deposited must not silently become the same measure as an approximately $696 million VaR requirement.
Waiver versus payment: An excess-capital-premium component above $2.2 billion was described as waived; that description does not prove a cash transfer or independently establish why it was waived.
Revised total versus net: Tenev calls approximately $1.4 billion a net deposit requirement; the House report calls approximately $1.4 billion a total requirement. Their terms must remain attributed.
Cash-payment discrepancy: Tenev reports approximately $737 million additionally deposited; the House report records approximately $734 million remaining and wired. Their disagreement is not a verified common ledger.
Eight versus thirteen: An SEC staff account describes eight January 28 securities; the House report describes thirteen January 28 PCO stocks. Its later eight-stock list is a February 1 position-limit snapshot.
Different endpoints: The after-hours February 4 lifting, a February 5 endpoint and the one-symbol February 10 fractional-share tail do not describe the same restriction scope or timestamp.
Source dependence: A House report reproducing a company's notice does not create another independent witness to that company's interpretation.
Constraint versus direction: A clearing constraint may explain the pressure on a broker; it does not on its own establish that a third party directed the discretionary purchase restrictions.
Procedural versus factual ruling: The Eleventh Circuit's June 26, 2024 antitrust pleading decision does not adjudicate every alleged motive.
Research versus standing: The inspected BIND-A0 set covers C1/C4/C5 at edition-wide scope; C2 and C3 are not thereby supported, admitted or bound.

Analysis

The GameStop restriction record requires a reader to distinguish a trading action, a collateral demand, deposits already held, a waived premium, a revised requirement, reported cash payments, participant explanations, staff analysis and procedural judgments. Each source addresses a different proposition or speaks from a different institutional position; matching numbers, titles or digests do not dissolve those distinctions.

The collateral witnesses do not supply one reconciled cash ledger: Tenev's approximately $737 million additionally deposited and the House report's approximately $734 million remaining and wired stay as two attributed accounts. Likewise, the SEC staff's eight-security January 28 snapshot, the House's thirteen-stock PCO snapshot and the later February restriction chronology cannot be combined into a single unqualified list. A reproduced notice remains one underlying notice.

These are research distinctions, not adjudicated claims. The existing C1/C4/C5 edition-wide binding subset does not extend to C2 or C3; a documentary constraint does not establish motive; a dismissal at the pleading stage does not resolve every motive hypothesis. The underlying representations, remaining verification gaps and each source's posture must travel with the account.

Temporal bounds

The event and restriction comparison centers on January 27–28 and the dated February 1–10, 2021 changes. The February and May 2021 hearings, October 2021 SEC staff report and June 2022 House majority and Republican-staff accounts are later documentary representations, not contemporaneous observations of every broker decision. The Eleventh Circuit's June 26, 2024 opinion concerns the antitrust pleading, not a new January 2021 event or universal determination of motive.

Questions in the research record

Questions the research dossier keeps separate, each with the positions and limits it records for the institutions involved. This is research analysis, not admitted findings.

Six collateral quantities must remain six quantities

The Wave 2 research direction explicitly requires total requirement, deposits held, net deficit, waived premium, revised total and cash paid to travel with their documentary basis. The following is a verification map, not a reconstructed bank ledger.

Quantity or event	Exact retained representation and passage	Definition and remaining limit
Initial total collateral requirement	Tenev, Vladimir Tenev written testimony, PDF/printed p. 9: approximately $3.7 billion in the January 28 automated notice at about 5:11 a.m. EST.	Attributed total clearing-fund deposit requirement, not additional cash or proof of cash transferred.
Additional cash demand / net deficit	Same passage: approximately $3 billion net due after the approximately $696 million already deposited.	The testimony supplies both figures. Do not recompute an exact deficit from rounded amounts or relabel it as payment.
Deposits already held	Same passage and p. 10: approximately $696 million already on deposit.	The earlier p. 9 reference to a $696 million VaR requirement is a separately described quantity; the repeated number does not make the two measures identical.
Waived premium	Tenev p. 9 describes an initial ECP above $2.2 billion, a partial reduction and then a full waiver shortly after 9 a.m. EST. House report House majority staff report, PDF p. 64 / printed p. 63, reports ECP $0 in a 9:11 a.m. notice.	These are attributed accounts of a component waiver, not an independently established explanation of why the waiver occurred or a complete payment-reduction calculation.
Revised requirement	Tenev pp. 9–10 calls about $1.4 billion the net deposit requirement; the House report p. 64 calls about $1.4 billion the total requirement.	Preserve those source terms. The testimony says the existing $696 million plus its additional deposit met the revised requirement; this does not authorize silently repairing its terminology or fusing it with the anonymized staff-report account.
Cash reported paid / remaining	Tenev p. 10 says approximately $737 million was additionally deposited. The House report p. 64 says approximately $734 million remained and was wired, citing the March 29 counsel letter in notes 292–293.	Two attributed figures, not a verified identical payment or a resolved $3 million discrepancy. The underlying wire record and counsel letter are not independently inspected here.

The testimony’s approximately $3 billion deficit is not the contract's separate $6.9 billion across 36 NSCC members on January 27. The latter is decomposed in the contract as $2.1 billion mark-to-market plus $4.8 billion special ECP charge. Neither the multi-member aggregate nor one broker's requirement may stand in for the other's scope.

Securities lists and lifting restrictions are dated snapshots

The staff report, SEC staff report PDF p. 35 / printed p. 34, describes an anonymized firm's January 28 PCO restriction on eight securities, its January 29 change to purchase limits on more than fifty, and the firm's account of removal on February 5. This is a staff-attributed account, not a universal endpoint for every kind of restriction.

The House report's Figure 39, PDF p. 78 / printed p. 77, instead records Robinhood PCOs on thirteen stocks on January 28, position limits on fifty on January 29–30, eight on February 1, five on February 2, and GME/AMC on February 3–4. The eight on February 1 are not the staff report's January 28 eight. The staff and House accounts also differ on the January 28 PCO count itself (eight versus thirteen); those two counts are not reconciled merely by changing dates or restriction types. PDF p. 74 / printed p. 73 and footnote 368 on p. 78 state that GME/AMC limits were lifted after market hours on February 4; the staff report and House p. 76 use a February 5 endpoint in their respective accounts. Preserve the after-hours change and following-day descriptions rather than treating them as interchangeable timestamps.

Fractional shares have a different tail. House p. 74, footnote 349, lists thirteen affected symbols; Figure 39's broad January 28–February 10 label is narrowed by footnote 368: only one symbol retained a fractional PCO through February 10, while the others' fractional restrictions were lifted through February 3. Thus neither “all restrictions ended February 5” nor “all thirteen lasted through February 10” is supported. Figure 39 also excludes margin, short-sale and options restrictions from its simplified equity comparison. The selected report proves what it states, not independent custody of each reproduced company notice.

Constraint does not exhaust motive

The frozen contract records NSCC's rules as not permitting it to order members to stop trading, and characterizes the restrictions as broker-dealer decisions. An observed collateral constraint can be relevant to a trading decision while leaving discretionary scope and motive unresolved. Tenev's account, the company statement, the clearing-system account and the majority report have different authors and roles. Agreement about a constraint does not prove every reason for every restriction.

A reproduced notice is one underlying notice

If House majority staff report reproduces a company notice, cite the report's reproduction and its relation to the company account. It is not automatically an independent source confirming the company's interpretation. Conversely, identifying dependence does not prove the notice false. Preserve the report's own analysis separately from the material it reproduces.

Questions and evidence limits

Provisional claim analyses from the research dossier: a proposed wording, its candidate sources, and what those sources can and cannot establish. They are research interpretation, not admitted claims, findings or decisions. Where the dossier writes “Refusal branch” or “Reopening condition”, it proposes when a broader formulation should be withheld or reconsidered; no refusal or standing decision has been made.

Observable price and volume

Provisional reader wording (not the frozen census wording)

The contract records extraordinary January price/volume movement, including January 27 close $347.51 and January 28 intraday high $483.00.

Candidate research source cards, not new bindings

SEC staff report

What this analysis can establish

The attributed SEC staff price and volume observations establish occurrence, not the cause of the overall market movement.

What it cannot establish / reason to qualify a stronger claim

Keep each date, measure and SEC staff attribution. C1 supplies occurrence, not a cause of the whole run-up. The retained §3.2 price passage is identified in A; the frozen census/binding locator difference remains visible.

Standing and next check

This is a provisional research analysis, not an admitted Counterpedia Claim, a CaptureReceipt, a Check outcome or a new Claim-to-SourceEdition relationship. The frozen candidate wording and proposition hash remain in the existing census. Any unresolved passage or representation requires its own check before a later owner decision.

Short-interest measurements

Provisional reader wording (not the frozen census wording)

Display 122.97% of public float in January 2021, 109.26% of shares outstanding at the December 31, 2020 high, and the separately dated roughly 140% press/Wikipedia comparison.

Candidate research source cards, not new bindings

SEC staff report
Wikipedia comparison edition

What this analysis can establish

The recorded percentages differ in date, denominator and representation; this dossier adds no C2 claim-source binding.

What it cannot establish / reason to qualify a stronger claim

Each figure needs its own date, denominator, source and methodology. Their difference alone establishes no computational error. This dossier adds no C2 binding.

Standing and next check

Broker purchase restrictions and attributed explanations

Provisional reader wording (not the frozen census wording)

Present the recorded January 28 restrictions beside the company's attributed clearing-deposit explanation and the staff account of NSCC rules.

Candidate research source cards, not new bindings

SEC staff report
Vladimir Tenev written testimony
House majority staff report
Robinhood company statement

What this analysis can establish

The restriction decision, clearing pressure and attributed party explanation remain different propositions. C3 has no inspected BIND-A0 relationship.

What it cannot establish / reason to qualify a stronger claim

Keep the six collateral quantities and the dated securities snapshots separate. C3 has no relationship in the inspected BIND-A0 set; the C1/C4/C5 relationships cannot be reused as its support.

Standing and next check

SEC staff's attributed market analysis

Provisional reader wording (not the frozen census wording)

SEC staff reported that covering likely contributed during discrete periods, was a small fraction of overall buy volume, and was not the sustaining driver in its analysis.

Candidate research source cards, not new bindings

SEC staff report

What this analysis can establish

This is SEC staff analysis with its disclaimer, not a Commission rule, an adopted legal conclusion or a complete account of every trade.

What it cannot establish / reason to qualify a stronger claim

Attribute staff analysis with its disclaimer; do not promote it to universal cause or legal adjudication.

Standing and next check

Contested sustaining mechanism

Provisional reader wording (not the frozen census wording)

Ask whether the run-up was principally caused or sustained by a short squeeze, using the contract's deliberately bounded comparison.

Candidate research source cards, not new bindings

Wikipedia comparison edition
SEC staff report

What this analysis can establish

Different accounts discuss short covering and the event's sustaining cause; a recorded 'contradicts' edge is not a truth judgment.

What it cannot establish / reason to qualify a stronger claim

Documented covering is not the same proposition as the principal sustaining cause. BIND-A0's contradicts relationship does not by itself decide truth, standing or admission.

Standing and next check

Why not?

BEST "WHY NOT?" SPECIMEN

Why not say that Robinhood restricted purchases because Citadel or hedge funds directed it?

Tempting claim: The trading restriction and collateral pressure establish that a third party directed the broker's action.

What the recorded basis actually supplies: The frozen contract identifies participant denials, the staff report's restriction discussion and the antitrust litigation. The district court's dismissal included two pleading grounds; on June 26, 2024 the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on the unreasonable-restraint ground alone, expressly leaving the sufficiency of the alleged agreement undecided. That procedural outcome neither proves nor disproves every asserted motive. Those sources have distinct roles; the inspected BIND-A0 set does not include C3.

Reason for withholding that conclusion: A documented constraint does not establish who directed each discretionary choice. Participant testimony is attributed testimony. A pleading-sufficiency outcome is a procedural adjudication, not disproof of every possible allegation. Neither the confident motive assertion nor its confident universal negation follows from this limited record.

Qualification: This is an editorial explanation of a research limit, not an emitted Check outcome, governed refusal or new standing decision. It does not erase what an authenticated source actually says.

Reopening condition: Reopen if authenticated communications, regulator findings, sworn evidence, or another admitted record establishes that Citadel/hedge-fund pressure caused or directed the January 28 purchase restrictions. This carries the frozen contract's condition; no such new evidence is claimed here.

Original dossier basis: Frozen contract §2, C3/C5 and the secondary refusal specimen; Vladimir Tenev written testimony, Kenneth Griffin written testimony and Antitrust district orders and appellate opinion in this dossier.

Origin of this passage

Research dossier · E. BEST "WHY NOT?" SPECIMEN · lines 403–415

Artifact SHA-256: ec73c162490a55c00e2b0e068407a2b4b89a58045545e9a8e33daa6522cf026c

Attributed research text; this locator does not establish source support or standing.

SECOND "WHY NOT?" — MONEY

Why not summarize the account as “$3 billion fell to $1.4 billion”?

Tempting claim: Two headline amounts form a complete before/after payment sequence.

Reason: Total collateral, deposits already held, net additional demand, a waived premium, a revised total requirement and cash actually paid are different accounting or cash-flow facts. A rounded cash-demand figure and a revised total requirement do not even have to share a denominator. The inspected research does not fill all six cells with exact amounts, times and page references.

Qualification: Tenev’s pp. 9–10 distinguish the $3.7 billion total, about $696 million held, about $3 billion net due and about $737 million additionally deposited after the revised requirement. The House account separately gives about $734 million remaining and wired. Source terminology and the payment discrepancy remain visible; neither is repaired by rounded subtraction or by identifying an anonymized staff-report account with a named party.

Reopening condition: A common payment ledger would require evidence resolving the $734 million/$737 million discrepancy and the sources’ requirement terminology. Preserve the distinction between the attributed transfers, the premium waiver and an independently verified payment change.

Original dossier basis: Frozen contract C3 and Annex A §3.5 summary; Wave 2 specification §4.2–§4.3; SEC staff report, Vladimir Tenev written testimony, House majority staff report and the separately marked Michael Bodson testimony — research supplement research supplement.

Origin of this passage

Research dossier · F. SECOND "WHY NOT?" — MONEY · lines 421–431

Artifact SHA-256: ec73c162490a55c00e2b0e068407a2b4b89a58045545e9a8e33daa6522cf026c

Attributed research text; this locator does not establish source support or standing.

THIRD "WHY NOT?" — TIMELINE AND DOCUMENT DEPENDENCE

Why not say that every purchase restriction ended at one moment for one list of securities?

Tempting claim: The eight-security list, thirteen-security list, February 4 notice and February 5 event are interchangeable descriptions of a single final state.

Reason: Counts have a source, date and restriction type. A notice issued after hours may describe a later effective action; fractional-share limitations, position limits and PCO do not automatically share an endpoint. The retained House-account passages have now been inspected; an independently retained original notice and its issuance metadata have not.

Qualification: The retained House pages now distinguish the January 28 thirteen-stock PCO list, February 1 eight-stock position limits, February 4 after-hours GME/AMC change and the one-symbol fractional tail through February 10. The staff report’s different count/date stays attributed. A company notice reproduced by the House report is still one underlying notice, not two independent confirmations of motive or scope.

Reopening condition: Carry the exact dated passages and their document relationships into a chronology with separate issuance, effective-action and remaining-limitation rows. Do not close one representation's check with a different document's similar sentence.

Original dossier basis: Frozen contract Annex A §3.6 summary; Wave 2 specification §4.2–§4.3; SEC staff report, House majority staff report and Robinhood company statement.

Origin of this passage

Research dossier · G. THIRD "WHY NOT?" — TIMELINE AND DOCUMENT DEPENDENCE · lines 437–447

Artifact SHA-256: ec73c162490a55c00e2b0e068407a2b4b89a58045545e9a8e33daa6522cf026c

Attributed research text; this locator does not establish source support or standing.

Sources

15 documentary source candidates · show the source list

Sources

15 research source candidates are carried by this entry, as authored in its research dossier. Each is a research candidate, not an admitted Counterpedia Source.

The dossier records an issuer for 0 of 15 and a date for 5; where it labels no issuer, the card says so. Addresses are shown as recorded. A recorded address is not a Counterpedia capture and does not establish retrieval, authenticity or support for any claim. A card links to a Counterpedia source page only where an accepted record relates a capture of an address recorded for that document to that public source; listing a candidate implies no other association.

Select a candidate below to mark it for reading. Selection never changes the entry or its conclusions.

Work with these sources

Explore a question

Start with a question, read the sources, and develop a working answer.

Your notes stay on this page until you leave or reload it. Download an editable copy to continue later. They are not saved to your account.

1. Your question

What would you like to understand?

2. Read with your question in mind

15 of 15 sources selected. Open the sources and look for the passages that address each part of your question.

Choose and read sources

Source pages open in a new tab so your question and notes stay here.

Compare selected sources (15)

Recorded source details. Missing fields are not inferred; selection does not establish support for a claim. Scroll across to compare sources.
Detail	Wikipedia comparison edition	SEC staff report	Vladimir Tenev written testimony	Kenneth Griffin written testimony	Keith Gill written testimony	Printed hearing record, Part I	House majority staff report	Republican committee memorandum	Robinhood company statement	Antitrust district orders and appellate opinion	Michael Bodson testimony — research supplement	CRS Insight — research supplement	SEC commissioners' statement — research supplement	SEC report release — research supplement	House report announcement — research supplement
Recorded title	Exact titleGameStop short squeeze	Exact titleStaff Report on Equity and Options Market Structure Conditions in Early 2021	Exact titleTestimony of Vladimir Tenev, Robinhood Markets, Inc.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	Exact titleGame Stopped: How the Meme Stock Market Event Exposed Troubling Business Practices, Inadequate Risk Management, and the Need for Legislative and Regulatory Reform	Not supplied in this view.	Exact titleWhat happened this week	Not supplied in this view.	Exact titleWritten Testimony of Michael C. Bodson, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation	Exact titleGameStop-Related Market Volatility: What Happened?	Exact titleStatement of Acting Chair Lee and Commissioners Peirce, Roisman, and Crenshaw Regarding Recent Market Volatility	Exact titleSEC Staff Releases Report on Equity and Options Market Structure Conditions in Early 2021	Exact titleWaters and Green Complete Investigation of Meme Stock Market Event; Release Report Revealing the Troubling Business Practices and Inadequate Risk Management Leading up to the Trading Frenzy
Issuer / publisher	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.
Documentary role	Authority / posturesecondary comparison for C2/C5. The frozen contract records its short-interest and causal framings. A dated later encyclopedia edition is not the state of that page during January 2021, and disagreement with staff analysis does not itself prove the encyclopedia wrong.	Authority / postureC1 event, C2 measurements, C3 staff-described restriction/clearing sequence, and C4/C5 attributed analysis. Only the three relationships in section A are covered by the inspected BIND-A0 set. Staff views have no legal force and are not a Commission rule, regulation or statement.	Authority / postureparticipant testimony and attributed explanation for C3. The contract carries Tenev's $3.7 billion figure as attributed testimony, not an independently adopted cash-payment fact.	Authority / posturean attributed participant denial in the frozen contract's motive discussion. A denial is neither an independent finding nor proof of its negation. No BIND-A0 relationship is inferred.	Authority / postureparticipant-origin account. Preserve the actual recorded host; do not construct an alternative mirror by filename pattern or infer governed claim support from its inclusion in the hearing.	Authority / posturehearing context and the exact oath exchange, if verified.	Authority / posturemajority-staff investigation, reported chronology and reproduced material. It is not a neutral judicial adjudication.	Authority / postureinstitutional counter-position to the majority report, not a neutral adjudication.	Authority / posturethe company's attributed explanation for C3. The optional January 28 announcement is a separate representation, not merged into this statement. Neither account proves every discretionary restriction was compelled or establishes third-party direction.	Not supplied in this view.	Authority / postureResearch supplement; intended use remains subject to exact-passage verification. clearing-system account for comparison with the participant and committee accounts. Check the exact passages and quantity definitions before using it to complete the collateral table.	Authority / postureResearch supplement; intended use remains subject to exact-passage verification. a separately dated research account. Its institutional provenance does not make it an independent measurement of every underlying figure or extend BIND-A0. The recorded locator is recovered above; substantive passage selection remains separate.	Authority / postureResearch supplement; intended use remains subject to exact-passage verification. a statement by its named commissioners, distinct from the later staff report. Its title or institutional host does not supply an unstated conclusion about causation. The recorded locator is recovered above; relied-on body passages remain to be selected before substantive use.	Authority / posturerelease context for the staff report. The report's October 14 document date and October 18 release date answer different questions. The announcement is not a second experimental or market-data analysis. Its recorded locator is recovered above without constructing a URL from its identifier.	Authority / posturemajority report announcement, separate from the report. An announcement and the report it introduces are not independent corroborating investigations. No present-day navigation result is claimed for the recorded locator.
Recorded dates	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	DateFebruary 18, 2021 hearing.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	DateJanuary 29, 2021.	Not supplied in this view.	DateMay 6, 2021 House Financial Services hearing.	Not supplied in this view.	DateJanuary 29, 2021.	Not supplied in this view.	DateJune 24, 2022.
Recorded identifiers	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	Exact documentKenneth Griffin written testimony for the February 18, 2021 hearing.	Exact documentKeith Gill written testimony for the February 18, 2021 hearing.	Exact identifierCHRG-117hhrg43966.	Not supplied in this view.	Exact documentHouse Financial Services Republican staff memorandum, June 24, 2022.	Not supplied in this view.	CaseIn re January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation, 1:21-md-02989; appeal 22-11873.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.	Not supplied in this view.
Recorded locators	Recorded locatorhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GameStop_short_squeeze&oldid=1367052421	Original locatorhttps://www.sec.gov/files/staff-report-equity-options-market-struction-conditions-early-2021.pdf	Recorded serving locatorhttps://docs.house.gov/meetings/BA/BA00/20210218/111207/HHRG-117-BA00-Wstate-TenevV-20210218.pdf Retained passage checkPDF/printed pp. 9–10 supply the January 28 notice, decision window and attributed quantities in section C. The November download usedhttps://democrats-financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hhrg-117-ba00-wstate-tenevv-20210218.pdf	Recorded serving locatorhttps://docs.house.gov/meetings/BA/BA00/20210218/111207/HHRG-117-BA00-Wstate-GriffinK-20210218.pdf	Recorded serving locatorhttps://democrats-financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hhrg-117-ba00-wstate-gillk-20210218.pdf	Contract locatorhttps://www.congress.gov/117/chrg/CHRG-117hhrg43966/CHRG-117hhrg43966.pdf Public-source observation (2026-11-07; no native receipt)The GPO [official hearing transcript](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-117hhrg43966/html/CHRG-117hhrg43966.htm	Contract locatorhttps://democrats-financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/6.22_hfsc_gs.report_hmsmeetbp.irm.nlrf.pdf	Contract locatorhttps://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/memorandum_for_fsc-rs_re_meme_stock_event_final.pdf	Contract locatorhttps://robinhood.com/us/en/newsroom/what-happened-this-week/	Not supplied in this view.	Recorded research locatorhttps://docs.house.gov/meetings/BA/BA00/20210506/112590/HHRG-117-BA00-Wstate-BodsonM-20210506.pdf	Recorded research locatorhttps://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN11615/IN11615.1.pdf	Recorded research locatorhttps://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/joint-statement-market-volatility-2021-01-29	Recorded research locatorhttps://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021-212	Recorded historical locatorhttps://democrats-financialservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=409578
Source status	research candidate	research candidate	research candidate	research candidate	research candidate	research candidate	research candidate	research candidate	research candidate	research candidate	research candidate	research candidate	research candidate	research candidate	research candidate

The comparison shows recorded source details. It does not evaluate whether the sources answer your question.

3. Your working answer

Write what you learned. Name the source and passage behind each point, and distinguish what it says from your interpretation.

Still to check

Which parts of your question remain unanswered? Record disagreements, missing material and your next step.

Keep your work and return to it

Downloads your question, notes and source selection as an editable file (.json). Reopen it on this entry to continue. It contains no source document files.

Reopening a file replaces the question, notes and selection on this page. Download your current work first if you want to keep both.

Plain text with the current selected source details and your notes. It contains no source document files and is not saved to your account.

Return to your question and notes

All 15 sources selected.

Return to the entry

Record provenance

research_artifact: {"pack_id":"demo-corpus-wave2","artifact_slug":"gamestop-trading-restrictions-demo-corpus-dossier-v0-1","artifact_sha256":"ec73c162490a55c00e2b0e068407a2b4b89a58045545e9a8e33daa6522cf026c","source_href":"/research/demo-corpus-wave2/gamestop-trading-restrictions-demo-corpus-dossier-v0-1","source_kind":"dossier"}

Projection axes

Postureresearch

Source kindresearch_template

Source surfacenot supplied

This renderer preserves upstream distinctions; it does not mint identity, support, authenticity, admission, or truth.

INSPECTCounterpedia Check · this read modelInspect only the signals this renderer actually received

Record identifier: research:demo-corpus-wave2:gamestop-trading-restrictions-demo-corpus-dossier-v0-1
Posture: research
Source kind: research_template
Lifecycle: not recorded
Source footprint: not supplied to this presentation
Capture associations: not evaluated here
Unresolved capture identity: not evaluated here
Truth: not a finding of this renderer
Authenticity: not inferred from source or capture presence
Research profile: Demo Corpus
Artifact kind: dossier
Source candidates: 15

CHECK is inspection, not a truth badge. Source presence ≠ support; capture association ≠ authenticity; rendering ≠ admission.

GameStop

Scope

Key distinctions

Analysis

Temporal bounds

Questions in the research record

Six collateral quantities must remain six quantities

Securities lists and lifting restrictions are dated snapshots

Constraint does not exhaust motive

A reproduced notice is one underlying notice

Questions and evidence limits

Observable price and volume

Short-interest measurements

Broker purchase restrictions and attributed explanations

SEC staff's attributed market analysis

Contested sustaining mechanism

Why not?

BEST "WHY NOT?" SPECIMEN

Why not say that Robinhood restricted purchases because Citadel or hedge funds directed it?

SECOND "WHY NOT?" — MONEY

Why not summarize the account as “$3 billion fell to $1.4 billion”?

THIRD "WHY NOT?" — TIMELINE AND DOCUMENT DEPENDENCE

Why not say that every purchase restriction ended at one moment for one list of securities?

Sources

Sources

Wikipedia comparison edition

SEC staff report

Vladimir Tenev written testimony

Kenneth Griffin written testimony

Keith Gill written testimony

Printed hearing record, Part I

House majority staff report

Republican committee memorandum

Robinhood company statement

Antitrust district orders and appellate opinion

Michael Bodson testimony — research supplement

CRS Insight — research supplement

SEC commissioners' statement — research supplement

SEC report release — research supplement

House report announcement — research supplement

2. Read with your question in mind

Keep your work and return to it