GameStop Debunks Heat Lamp
dismal-jellyfish.com
GameStop Rejects Shareholder Claims, Debunks Heat Lamp, and Fully Supports 'Plan' For Shareholders.

TLDRS

GameStop Rejects Shareholder Claims, Debunks Heat Lamp, and Fully Supports ‘Plan’ For Shareholders.

GameStop states these allegations by the Proponent are speculative and lack factual evidence, misleading shareholders about the integrity of the Company and its DirectStock Plan.

GameStop goes on to say the connection between the DirectStock Plan’s recurring purchases and the alleged market manipulations is not substantiated, casting doubt on the relevance of these claims to the shareholder vote.

GameStop and Computershare assert that recurring purchases are intended for market transparency, not for facilitating any illegal activities.

  • jergy@lemmy.whynotdrs.orgEnglish
    0·
    9 months ago

    i disagree with the assertion that heat lamp has been debunked, though it seems like some people really want people to necessarily believe this to be true and final.

    put aside the name “heatlamp theory” and address 2 of the main points:

      1. Plan is not DRS. “Plan is not DRS” is not debunked, just because GameStop rejected the shareholder proposals, or that there were issues with the shareholder proposals. The simple fact remains, that plan shares are not DRS shares.
      1. On some DRS record dates, there have been large spikes in volume. Heat lamp offers a possible explanation for how / why. It is a theory, and it isn’t necessarily totally right. But, if not right, then how else are these volume spikes explained? To my knowledge, nobody else has put together a thoughtful explanation as to why volume of GME traded spikes on some but not all DRS record dates.

    Okay, so heat lamp as originally proposed might not be the fully accurate explanation for the volume spikes. So what are the alternative explanations then?

    Something worth noting is that there seems to be a very effortful push to authoritatively declare “DEBUNKED!” without explaining specifically how it is debunked, and without providing any alternative explanations.

    • Observation: GME volume spikes on some DRS record dates.
    • Theory: “i propose that the reason why this happens is because…”
    • Opposition: “Heatlamp is definitively debunked and there is no other explanation!”

    Plan is not DRS is a true statement and is not debunked.
    GME has unusual trading volume on some DRS record dates, this is another true observation that is not debunked.

    One theory that attempts to tie these things together might not be completely accurate but to my awareness is the most thoughtful explanation that exists thus far. I’d love to see alternative explanations but I don’t know of any. Superstonk mods by consensus are opposed to the notion that there is any validity to heatlamp theory, yet offer absolutely nothing else as an alternative.

    TLDR: “heatlamp is debunked” is just another example of narrative control being perpetrated by a group of moderators of the largest GME internet community. More information is needed to make any kinds of authoritative claims.

    • SubDRSive@lemmy.whynotdrs.orgOPEnglish
      0·
      9 months ago

      I generally agree. I certainty don’t know everything or who is saying things for their own or other external reasons.

      Dismal covers a lot of ground, so is perhaps a pro or backed by pros. Either way, it’s stuff beyond my normal prowl and I’m free, so far, to think about it in any way I want.

      I see the statements made by GME corporate as corporate statements.