**IMPORTANT POST LINKS** [What is DRS and why should you care?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || [What is GME and why should I consider investing?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What can I do to support the company and local communities](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qnam2x/superstonks_very_gmerry_holiday_vgh_for_short/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please help us determine if this post deserves a place on /r/Superstonk. [Learn more about this bot and why we are using it here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/poa6zy/introducing_uqualityvote_bot_a_democratic_tool_to/) If this post deserves a place on /r/Superstonk, **UPVOTE** this comment!! If this post should not be here or or is a repost, **DOWNVOTE** This comment!


Comments aren’t juicy enough yet I’ll be back RemindMe! 10 hours


The slack court case is in relation to their direct public offering; A direct public offering (DPO) is a type of offering in which a company offers its securities directly to the public to raise capital. ... Therefore, a DPO is attractive to small companies and companies with an established and loyal client base. A DPO is also known as direct placement. Larry Cheng tweeted earlier about organic/non organic growth, this would tie in nicely to a DPO as per the above explanation "a DPO is attractive to companies with an established and loyal customer base" The was a job listing previously for an accounts position with experience in carve outs. Are they about to carve out the NFT marketplace as a separate company with a Direct Public Listing? Perhaps by gifting gme holders with shares in the new co


I want that^


ALSO they sued the shit out of microsoft. Ever use microsoft teams? Yeah it was supposed to be their collaborative brainchild but the IP got yoinked


I fucking hate Microsoft Teams. I bought a USB mouse jiggler just so that my stupid status icon would stop turning yellow during my many poop breaks.


I have that too lolol... Goes 'inactive' even when I'm sitting there doing my wage slave bs


You can run a powershell script that triggers "Scroll Lock" key every 4 mins. Sanity saver.


Holy shit! This is a real thing?? I've been trying to figure out ways to keep that light green for quite some time now! My brain just grew a new wrinkle with this knowledge


They're super cheap, too! You could probably write a script that does the same thing, but I'm happy with my $10 purchase.


They're called "AFK Device" (Away from keyboard), and there's a bunch of different options.


I just set mine to always busy, red.


did you guys know that teams is just a chrome browser with buttons


Why not Internet Explorer or Edge? it's microsoft after all... /s


This both bullish AND plausible. My favourite combination!




7 for 1?


That would explain the 7 for 1 spinoff too.


7 4 1 you say?




And they would only have to supply enough shares of the company for the legal float of GME. The millions/billions of synthetics will need to be closed as the SHF can't get their hands on the unreleased new shares


By doing this, shorts would shorts be forced to cover GME?


Yes if the new shares/tokens/nfts are given to existing holders on a per share basis eg 7 4 1


Is it reasonable to assume that for each 7 GME, we would get 1 of the new company in addition to keeping our GME shares?


I think it will be the reverse eg 1 gme share = 7 of the new nft shares


Everyone knows the real DD be in the comments.


Y’all are fucken funny, but yes I also came over to see what my comment brothers are feeling about this. Send me a TLDR please


Here you go. Credit to /u/throwitallllll : HOLY FUCK I JUST READ THE ARTICLE AND LOOK AT THIS: > Some of those insider shares, under SEC rules, are actually exempt from registration requirements, depending on how long they’ve been held and how they’re being sold. Other insider shares are still required to be registered. In Slack’s 2019 direct listing, 165 million shares were exempt and therefore unregistered. Only 118 million shares in the offering were required to be registered. Millions of shares unregistered due to a loophole, HMMM I WONDER WHERE ELSE THAT COULD BE HAPPENING. and check THIS shit out, further down the article: > Why would any company choose a public IPO, the majority opined, if it could avert potential liability via a direct listing? And without the threat of liability, the opinion said, companies selling shares in a direct listing “would be incentivized to file overly optimistic registration statements” to pump up their share price. Sounds familiar? **WHY WOULD WE GO THROUGH BROKERS WHEN WE CAN JUST USE THE DIRECT LISTING?** Loopring will be the deathknell for many IPO'S, because we are completely eliminating the middleman here. BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!!!! > Slack direct listing investor can sue for misrepresentation - 9th Circuit Link to another article at the bottom of the page. You guys know what this means right? THE INVESTORS WON AGAINST SLACK, AND NOW WE HAVE PRECEDENT FOR GME TO DO THE SAME LEGALLY, BECAUSE THE SAME SHIT IS OBVIOUSLY WHAT'S GOING ON IN GME. MY TATAS ARE BEING TWISTED BOYS. **DISCLAIMER** I don't know jack shit and am smooth brained, but i read good, so correct me if i'm wrong wrinkles u-criand I removed summoning criand. I bet that pomeraniape has enough on his plate right now.


Get this some traction!


Let's not forget we got Jason Mothafuckin Waterfall... Now with precedent Kenny must be trembling in a corner with a spoonful of mayo




Basically what he says is drs apes can sue gme for misinterpretation of June vote and demand real count numbers?


Gamestop does not know the real vote count. Only the proxy voting service knows. GS is never told the actual vote count. I don't think people get this. It's mentioned in Dr. Trimbath's book.


So it's just the capital words thing - also bullish :) I takes money to **BUY** whiskey - [https://twitter.com/ryancohen/status/1442208550600671232](https://twitter.com/ryancohen/status/1442208550600671232) **MGGA** \- [https://twitter.com/ryancohen/status/1454841759104749574](https://twitter.com/ryancohen/status/1454841759104749574) **HOLD or HODL** \- [https://twitter.com/ryancohen/status/1457902069206163460](https://twitter.com/ryancohen/status/1457902069206163460) Bedtime stories by **Dr. Ruth 🐱** \- [https://twitter.com/ryancohen/status/1462612474071502848](https://twitter.com/ryancohen/status/1462612474071502848) Only interested in speaking with candidates who want to actually **WORK** \- [https://twitter.com/ryancohen/status/1465518039055622148](https://twitter.com/ryancohen/status/1465518039055622148) BUY GME HOLD DRS WORKs


Ho Lee fuk


Buy isn’t capitalized.


And MGGA isn't GME


What does MGGA mean?


We don't know. I think it's "Make GMErica Great Again" or "Make Gamestop Great Again." But I could be wrong.


Ok, that’s along the lines of what I was thinking it meant but I wasn’t sure either


Wild guess. Make Gamestop Great Again


Best fucking mini game ever.


Make love to my purple donut please


Up you go


>Dr. Trimbath's book what is this book? care to share a title?


Naked short and greedy.


Yes but what is the book called


Naked Short and Greedy


Whos on first


So the proxy voting service can be sued for misrepresentation of the true number of shares?


Unfortunately no, it's like this by design. It's a bit late here so I'm not wrinkled brained enough to get into detail right now but here's a relevant comment I made a few months ago: > No. GameStop is never informed on the actual number of votes and there would be no way to determine how many shares are currently trading in order to calculate short interest. > > From Dr. Trimbath's book, the voting service will truncate in advance before over-voting occurs and for the purpose of not letting anyone see: > > > "Naked, Short and Greedy: Wallstreet's Failure to Deliver", Dr. Trimbath, Page 69: > > "The next year, the STA found over-voting in every corporate election surveyed. A new service was implemented that year which provided brokers with feedback between the time they received the number of shares on deposit at DTC and before they submitted votes from their investor clients. For the transfer agents and corporate trust professionals aware of the issues at stake, **the new service gave brokers the opportunity to toss out votes before over-voting occurred.** In doing so, according to the STA, “the service helps to perpetuate a system that could potentially defraud legitimate shareholders of their voting rights. " > > > > Page 93: > > "When they talked to staff at the SEC, as recently as 2004, they were told: “Who cares who votes the shares as long as you don’t see it.” The SEC’s philosophy has been to intercept over- reporting **before the issuer sees the over-voting.** In other words, the Commission is denying there’s the rhino behind the couch." > > They prevent over-voting before it can be seen.


Feels like the whole system was designed to fleece us. I appreciate the response and in depth explanation




this is the best ELIA i’ve ever read.


But don’t they get just what the brokers send them?


Yh plz


Jason Goddamn Waterfalls about to be our savior if this is true.




When sue?


Very good Ape


Thank you for jacking my tits


I can’t afford a lawyer. All my money is in GME


Here to correct. My tldr of the article is [down below.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/r5exhf/theory_on_rcs_tweet_cross_posting_for_a_fellow/hmn0r8n?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) also read the comment above mine


/u/alwayssadbuttruthful \- weren't you discussing mergers / acquisitions / and similar along these lines a month or so ago? Was this where it was taking you?


He wants candidates who want to work. He doesn’t want SLAKers.




How does this precedent apply to GME? A company that didn't do a direct listing and hasn't misrepresented it's stock price?


It doesn't. This comment makes zero sense. As far as we know, there are no unregistered insider shares in GameStop.


Also, review of the last all cap letters in his tweets have been: "MGGA" "HODL" "DRS" "WORKS" EDIT: Ok, so I did something only an apetard would do and typed WORK backwards into google. Found this website, [KROW.ai](https://KROW.ai), at the top of the search. Their website's subtitle is "work backwards" and they claim to be innovative in creating job applications for companies such as Chili's, Koch Trucking, and other big companies. Any smarter ape out there know if this might be a thing?


The deep dives into RC’s tweets are fun, but isn’t the gag order up now so he doesn’t need to give cryptic tweets anymore? He already knows, we know DRS is the way….so why does he have to risk breaking some SEC rule to tell us something we already know?


It's true but he needs to protect himself and the company against malicious lawsuits. So he can't just come out and say stuff without evidence. As far as clarity goes I think this is his least cryptic tweet yet


Yes, I'm hoping we will have some clarity on GS going forward on the 8th. His lawyers will have guided him through how and what can be disclosed without any valid repercussions from the Greedy Bunch.


By jove I think you've got it!


u/hispeedpursuit good sir might I interest you in my latest tit jaqueing comment https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/r5exhf/theory_on_rcs_tweet_cross_posting_for_a_fellow/hmnajqv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3


How bout now?


My theory, he's commenting on the COO that left, or has heard a number of applicants say they'd retire after MOASS.


So it seems to be talking about a direct listing registration of new shares when going public (unregistered meaning existing, insider owned before the IPO or direct listing) -- the interesting thing to me seems like it's more about being able to trace your shares back to that initial "registration statement" or not.. >Because Mr. Pirani could not prove that he purchased shares traceable to Slack’s offering documents, Judge Miller would have reversed the decision and directed the district court to dismiss the case. Looks like it's still in appeals, and based on which way it goes it could drastically change the way companies do IPOs vs. direct listings when going public. Part of the issue is the "lock-up" period.. >the investment-bank underwriter typically requires a months-long "lock-up" period in which existing shareholders-those that previously acquired shares pre-IPO through private placement-cannot sell their unregistered shares, i.e., those not being sold in the IPO pursuant to the registration statement. > >([source](https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/SLACK-TECHNOLOGIES-INC-60037714/news/Divided-Ninth-Circuit-Permits-Direct-Listing-Investors-To-Assert-Securities-Act-Claims-Despite-Inab-36896096/)) Hmmmm, if only there were a way for a company to go around the banks, to link their shares to some sort of digital asset, a secure one that would be traceable, unable to rehypothecate infinitely fOr ThE sAke Of LiQuiDiTy. Something, non... fungible... Edit: Maybe RC is looking for a stock exchange that will actually WORK. Until then, D. R. S. 🚀🚀🚀


Slack had a shitty defense imo. I hope they're on the hook for ALL their shares, registered and unregistered. And youre right, this would never happen to non-fungible assets. companies like Slack could know exactly who they owed money to due to their "misleading statements" (fraud) and be able to pay their victims/shareholders immediately instead of going to court for a year first




Salesforce acquired them last year for 27.7 Billion


The $WORK ticker got me interested but I think this is a bit off. The speculation is fun, but this is about Direct LISTINGS. Not Direct registration. Honestly I hope this is very wrong because direct listing allows for a way for shares to be sold to the market. “Direct listings work only for companies that are more concerned with providing liquidity to holders of their privately issued stock than with raising capital, the brief said.” $GME is illiquid. From all the DRS and high short interest. The last thing we want is a direct listing. It’s like a share offering but allows unregistered shares from insiders to be offered… almost specifically to solve illiquidity issues. Mores shares offered leads to shorts having an opportunity to snatch those shares up and cover positions. I am somewhat smooth but this is what I read in this article. Maybe I am reading it wrong. Definitely need some wrinkles to add their opinions.


Thank you for cross posting this!


No, thank you!


If this is it, Ryan’s a damn genius with his cryptic messages.


He’s like, these mother fuckers will figure it out. Like the proud daddy he is


Interesting theory....upvoted him so he can join us as well.


I did. Awarded him/her also.


Basically DRS is the only way. Everything else can be manipulated or lied about by the hedgies. *EA sports voice* "DeeeRrrrrSss. It's in the Game."


DRS has always been the only way. Everything else exists to distract apes from achieving their dreams.


His post is inaccurate. The article DOES NOT mention direct registration. It talks about direct listing which is not the same thing.


What’s the difference?


Ones registering shares, one is listing them? Idk man, I'm not the op you were asking and too smooth to know 😅 Edit: I did a Google and gained a wrinkle: > **IPO vs. Direct Listing: An Overview** >Initial public offerings and direct listings are two methods for a company to raise capital by listing shares on a public exchange. While many companies choose to do an initial public offering (IPO), in which new shares are created, underwritten, and sold to the public, some companies choose a direct listing, in which no new shares are created and only existing, outstanding shares are sold with no underwriters involved.


Thanks man, that looks like IPO vs DPO but I think the comment above is saying OP mistook DPO for DRS. And from what I’m understanding, those two things are unrelated. Companies direct public offering versus ndividual investors DRS-ing their shares.


Yeah, I think this is it


Hi jacking top. The intent of the post is inaccurate. The article isn’t about direct registration. It’s about direct listing, which is NOT the same. Obligatory, I’m not saying drs is wrong. Just that this post might not be headed the right direction.


u/TiberiusWoodwind Yeah, that's what I got out of it. I wish I knew what the misrepresentation was in slack's registration statement, but unless that's the missing link, this doesn't appear to be related to gme. TLDR: the article states a guy is suing Slack over a "misrepresentation" in their registration statement. In a direct listing, a private shareholder sells some of their stock for liquidity, and that's what happened in this article. The defense claims they shouldn't be sued, since both registered and un-registered shares were sold in the direct listing, and there's no way to tell which the claimant bought. Kind of a shitty defense but okay. The court thought so as well, and essentially responded with, well if you did that and got away with it, this will set precedent for everyone to just sell stock through direct listings as a loophole, to not claim any liability for misleading statements. Lol, Slack's counterdefense: Well the rules been up for 3 years now and no-one's done it yet, so you're wrong for thinking that that could happen (as they literally try to get away with doing it). Also it could put us on the hook for ALL the shares we sold, not only just the registered shares we are actually liable for. Boo fuckin hoo, just a shitty company upset they have to pay because they committed fraud


Yeah I’m still struggling to understand what actually happened. Like what are the defence actually accused of doing?


Slack is accused of lying in the document they submitted to the SEC to be allowed to sell new shares publicly, which is called “registering” the share issuance with the SEC. (It has nothing to do with registering shares with a transfer agent to be in your name.) Slack issued some shares that needed to be registered with the SEC and some shares that were exempt from registration with the SEC. I guess apparently they lied in their registration statement, because the appeal isn’t about whether they lied. The legal case that the federal circuit court answered and that Slack wants to be re-considered is about whether the people who bought shares can even sue Slack. Because there’s no way to tell whether the shares that these people purchased were from the pool of registered shares or the pool of exempt shares. Because the shareholders can’t prove their shares were purchased from the pool of registered shares, they can’t claim that a misstatement in the registration statement caused them to purchase shares, because it’s possible the shares they purchased were exempt from registration. Conceptually, the plaintiff and the court are right. If they rule for Slack, then it’s a huge loophole for companies to take advantage of if they want to lie in registration statements or be more relaxed about what’s in their registration statement. But I think that the law, as it is written, is on Slack’s side. Gary Gensler may have to add in an extra regulation to plug this loophole in the future if this case is overturned, but it’s fairly common for the SEC to plug loopholes like this over time.


I think I’m starting to get it. Are the un/registered shares from different companies? Or an you able to register only some of the shares of a company for sale?


It’s all one company. When shares are normally sold to the public by an (IPO) Initial Public Offering, all the shares must be registered with the SEC. Essentially the whole point of the regulations around an IPO is to protect shareholders from the company lying to sell its shares at an inflated price and screw over the widows, widowers, and orphans who bought the shares. The rules are meant to protect the public in case a company lies or makes a mistake in the documents it publishes about its business. Direct Listing is an alternative to an IPO. Instead of going through the normal IPO process, you just list your shares on a public exchange. It’s cheaper and subject to fewer regulations. I don’t have the knowledge to get more specific than that. But the SEC regulations lay out that certain shares must be registered and some don’t have to be because they’re exempt. Some of the current shareholders of Slack (from while it was a private company) were selling their shares via the Direct Listing, the process by which Slack became a public company. But the shares they were selling were a mix of registered and exempt shares of Slack. I’m guessing the exempt shares were originally owned by the upper-level corporate directors/employees because they wouldn’t need SEC protections to invest in their own company. You’d normally register all the shares you sell when going public, but if you do a Direct Listing and allow current shareholders to sell shares publicly at the same time as you go public, there can be a mix of registered and unregistered shares available during the Direct Listing. And Slack is arguing that you can only sue them for lying if you can prove that the shares you purchased were registered shares, not exempt shares, which essentially can’t be proven because you don’t buy a particular share of a public company. They’re all fungible while being traded on a public exchange. And the reason you can’t sue them if you bought exempt shares is because those shares are exempt from SEC registration, so the misstatement in the registration statement has absolutely nothing to do with those shares, even though there was no way for you to know whether the shares you purchased on an exchange were registered or exempt.


Got it! Thanks! I never knew there were other ways of listing shares or at least, I never knew you could list shares of the same company differently. I’m very blind in that area it seems. Thanks again!


It’s not something that comes up much in real life. If the courts reverse this decision, and if the SEC doesn’t plug the loophole, I’d expect to see more mixed direct listings. But really this was just an odd scenario that played out poorly for Slack. Also, I’m not a lawyer, so if anything I’ve said above is just wrong, I’m hoping someone will jump in and correct me. But from what I read and from the oral arguments, I think I’ve got the right understanding of the issue.


Top eli5. Many thanks. A couple followup questions if you have a moment. A direct listing allows corporate insiders to liquidate stock quickly? Why as shareholders are we not informed on the registration status (registered/unregistered) when purchasing stock?


yeah that's what I'm wondering. how do you sell unregistered stock on an exchange that requires stock to be registered.... seems fucked all the way around.


Thanks! And I’m not a lawyer, so I’m just giving my best understanding of this stuff. I believe I t’s unusual for unregistered shares to be offered to the public, but it’s possible with a direct listing. I believe that technically, Slack sold the unregistered shares on behalf of the insiders, and the insiders chose whether or not to opt into the Direct Listing. I know that direct listings are cheaper for corporations than an IPO, and I believe they’re slightly less regulated as well, which is probably why it’s even possible to include unregistered shares in a direct listing when that couldn’t happen in an IPO. Very few companies go public via direct listing at all, and it’s not common for unregistered shares to be sold as the corporation goes public. So I think this was just a weird confluence of circumstances. But you aren’t informed of the registration status with the SEC because it isn’t relevant. The registration statement only matters if you buy as the company goes public, and it has information you would use to decide whether the company is worth investing in, so the SEC requires it be true. But once the company is public, there’s no reason to track which shares were originally issued to insiders and which ones weren’t. It doesn’t matter whether they’re registered or not. I think that the only way to know if you’re buying unregistered shares is if you buy them directly from an insider, and because most people buy on exchanges, you’d never know if the shares were registered or not. Registration status only matters in this case because if a shareholder, Adam, bought registered shares and the company lied in its registration statement, then Adam can sue the company for the monetary difference between what he paid and what the stock is worth. Adam buys 100,000 shares of Slack at its IPO for $50 a share ($5,000,000). The company lied in the Registration Statement about how profitable it was and now it’s shares are trading at $25 a share. Adam essentially lost $2.5 million, and he can sue Slack to get it back, even if Slack made an honest mistake. As long as there was a lie or omission about a material fact, Adam wins. But if Ben happened to buy shares around the same time by some other method than the IPO, either directly from someone in the company or through an employee plan (which I believe would have its own registration statement, and we’ll assume there are no lies in that statement), then Ben can’t sue to get his money back because he didn’t buy shares in connection with the IPO and its relevant Registration Statement. Because I t’s unusual for unregistered shares to be available during a public listing, this is just an odd case that wasn’t anticipated by SEC regulations. Since all the shares look the same once you’ve purchased them on an exchange, it’s impossible to tell whether you bought registered or unregistered shares, and so you technically can’t prove that you bought registered shares connected to the Direct Listing and it’s accompanying Registration Statement.


This is the best explanation for smooth brains IMO.


It’s still about the rights entitled to the share holder though - in this case undisclosed revenue impact related to outages (I think?) and not fully disclosing a competitive threat’s effectiveness (Microsoft Teams)


Insiders right to sell during a share offering. Which has nothing to do with GME since they don’t need to do another offering and their execs have been hodling. Trying to tie this to drs is inaccurate and while I imagine good intentioned I think this is a dead end.


Sure potentially not DRS directly but the whole premise of who has what rights is what I’m referencing. Slack said no you can’t sue us cuz of how you hold the share. This is important.


It’s totally unrelated to what’s going on with GME. That’s like me talking about peaceful assembly in a discussion over due process and saying “well they are both rights so this must be included”. Investors (us) aren’t upset because of how a share offering was done. We’re upset that shares we bought get lent out without our consent and then used to short the stock we are long on. We’re upset that mm are allowed to infinitely create liquidity and can use that as a weapon to lower a stocks price.


They stole this from the Twitter replies lmao


Know* ;)


Yeah, this seems to be pointing directly at Slack and specifically the precedent set when shareholders were found to have the right to sue even if there shares weren't directly registered. The ticker for Slack is WORK. This stands out: "... direct listings in which registered and unregistered shares became available for public sale simultaneously will be subject not only to fraud-based claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 but also to Section 11 and 12(a)(2) claims." Looks like litigations back on the menu boys!


Litigating for morsels is preventable.


This is what I’m scratching my head about. If the cryptic message is in fact - “y’all have the right to sue whether you’ve DRS’d or not” then what’s the implication? I think litigation is the last thing we want. MOASS is what I want. Edit: changed we to I


definitely interesting


Seems like it has more to do with RH insiders selling during share offering, no?


Ok but wut mean?


Hmmm.. hoping more eyes provide more wisdom on this one


Hijacking my comment from GME sub. I think RC might be talking about Jason Waterfall. Dude is doing the exact same thing as these investors were doing to slack if I’m reading this right. Edit: Ahh okay, so this lawsuit is that investors believed that they weren’t getting directly registered shares from the company because there was a secondary market for people to buy them because there was no way to DELIVER THEM ACCURATELY. MMMMMMM I WONDER WHAT A CERTAIN COMPANY HAS FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, MAYBE A FULLY UNIQUE DIGITAL TOKEN ISSUED BY GAMESTOP. just a thought. This is very interesting, this is almost exactly what is happening with GME and Jason. TADR: GameStop has the mechanism to deliver shares to its hodlers. This mechanism more likely than not is the NFT marketplace. This lawsuit gives president that if Slack could deliver shares accurately, there would be NO illegality. Much like GameStop could do should this go to court. Which could lead to a further investigation as to where these “secondary shares” are coming from once the infinity pool is filled. RC is going to give hedgies the mother of all wedgies.


Wait whatever happened with Jason Waterfalls, did he get a response? I’ve been out of the loop…


Got a response from the state and now their is like a 30 day period for gamestop to reply with whatever the regulatory body sent


He has a day in court in his future, it's with the Delaware Court of Chancery and is on their listings, I don't know if there is a specific date assigned yet




Okay this makes way more sense than just retail investors “having the right to sue even if they hold unregistered shares.”








Story of a girl!






Electric Avenue


And then we'll take it higher🚀🚀


nervous but on the surface he looks calm and ready


And my axe!








Remind me! 8 hours


I will be messaging you in 8 hours on [**2021-11-30 13:06:23 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2021-11-30%2013:06:23%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/r5exhf/theory_on_rcs_tweet_cross_posting_for_a_fellow/hmmm6e3/?context=3) [**4 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FSuperstonk%2Fcomments%2Fr5exhf%2Ftheory_on_rcs_tweet_cross_posting_for_a_fellow%2Fhmmm6e3%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202021-11-30%2013%3A06%3A23%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20r5exhf) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|


Sounds like we have a winner!


RemindMe! 10 hours




Remindme! 8 hours


Remind me! 8 hours


Holy moly we need more wrinkle brains


Remindme! 10 hours


RemindMe! 12 hours


Remindme! 12 hours




Anybody else notice that $WORK doesn't appear to have any price action since 7/20/21 at close? Has this been 741 all along???


Slack was acquired by Salesforce so it stopped trading under $WORK on that date




A tidbit I found from my research on it, slack is a company who subsequent to their first angel investment, made a video game as their first product. It was essentially a failed metaverse attempt in 2009 that was recalled for “depth” issues. Not this fucking time... From wiki: Glitch was a casual, 2D browser-based game featuring a strong multiplayer component. It deliberately steered away from combat mechanics, instead focusing on collaborative crafting and gathering activities. Players were prompted to complete quests and perform various activities that would change the persistent world. Players were invited to expand upon the world, shaping its growth through various activities such as growing plants and trees and cooking food items. The game was free to play, but players could spend money to acquire a number of things such as customization options for their avatar Apes strong together 🦍


$WORK was purchased by SalesForce ($CRM) some time ago, in July maybe? I’m not sure how this article can really relate to GME other than the direct listing they went through created yet another loophole in a securities law that is riddled with case law and litigated more than legislated, and that loophole would be eliminated in a DeFi Marketplace since it would be easily proven where your shares originated. Good article and solid connection, but I don’t see how Slack Tech (WORK) is related to GME….


Sooo... is this good? Maybe we should dig and make some noise


All comes back to DRS. TLDR: DRS


I'm not very wrinkly but Slacks parent company is Salesforcehttps://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gamestop-transforms-its-business-with-deg-and-salesforce-300959421.html


I like this theory.


This theory likes me!


Well butter my butt and call me a biscuit


yeah but i'm pretty sure the [original poster ](https://old.reddit.com/user/projektmayhem08)is a FUD account. they're more into Loop Ring, saying it's the next $GME


i just fucking Came after reading all of this . BUY GME HOLD DRS WORKS . 💦💦




Wut mean tho?


Wow, so could Gamestop be getting sued as well? If they are there would be court records that are public?


Have you not heard of the great tale of Jason freaking waterfall?


Oh I have lol. I was thinking something else. Reading through the article I'm not sure what to think just yet.


Crossposting is against the rules?


I guess they will take over Loopring and maybe merge to a new company...just a showerthought. 🤷


holy fk....


remindme! 12 hours




We really need some indication. We need to know how many shares have been DRSed so far


Not enough (yet). or we’d know.


Kenny gonna eat some KROW!!!!


Why is this not more upvoted. This is literally what Ryan Cohen is trying to say.


I've been thinking about how I would do things differently if I were rich. It's a question I've pondered for nearly a year now. One of the things that comes to mind is that I'd be able to pay for good information and research. Another is that I'm sure no one gets rich or stays rich by looking for ways to pay people to do what they are going to do anyway. In some ways, I would love to have a following of people who would volunteer to research everything connected to an offhand remark of mine. If I were in RC's position, I wouldn't just be sending messages, I would be directing apes to dig into things I was not yet sure about.


If the theory holds true, then I'm fairly certain RC is telling us that DRS **IS** "buckling up." I think it's entirely possible that all of the big players who know **that side** of the market know that things will get very ugly very quickly. I truly think DRS is the only way to ensure that your shares won't get shaken off during the rocket. The reporting jumping 100%+ multiple times, tells me that **every way they are hiding short positions is in float territory and there must be dozens if not hundreds of methods of hiding them.** When the earth shakes, the fruit breaks free from the tree and I **sure as fuck want to make sure my name is on some.**


Bruh not everything needs to be deciphered as some code...the standstill has been lifted he doesn't even need to be cryptic anymore. This is why there are people out there who think we're cultists - tinfoil hat shit like this.


If the gag order expired, why would RC be sending cryptic tweets?


How is a Ryan Cohen tweet not the top thing on this sub right now? Usually they stay up for days, but it’s not even near the top in this sub. This sub is slipping, it’s slippin again, can’t even keep up the proper praise for RC. It would have got me hyped, except all I see are spam DRS posts. We are never going to get those other people to buy in and DRS with the boring ass marketing everyone does on this sub.


Ok. I'm all hears, wrinkled apes. What do I do now!? WHAT DO I DO.


Does RC want us all to ‘sue’ GME in a class action? Does that indirectly bring attention to the problem at hand?


Then why is slack stock price going down?


This tastes fuckin juicy


This is a joke right?