GME Short Squeeze What Comes Next Part 3
Hello all,
Before I begin I would like to address something I have been encountering on my posts in the comments section. I keep receiving some hate concerning my opinions and I want to be crystal clear that they are just that; opinions. I also want everyone to know that is is meant to be a dialog. I am not trying to pump this stock because truthfully, this goes far beyond us retail investors at this point. What I want is a dialog between all sides to examine this truly fascinating phenomenon that is occurring.
I would also like to clarify something, I am not a bagholder. I do currently hold bags because I own 336 shares at a $194.34 cost basis, however, that total amount is house money that was used from my profits on the first go around.
I also understand some people are tired of hearing about this because it's the same regurgitated form of someone else's post as it keeps circulating in an attempt to retain hype and drive future buying; this is not what this post is about. As investors and individuals involved in the world of finance, this situation should absolutely intrigue us whether or not we are involved. I am here to present my logic on the situation but encourage healthy discussion and debate.
This brings me to my first claim. This is not over. Now, I am not claiming that a squeeze will still occur, I am simply claiming it is not over, for better or for worse. Several things need to take place for this to be completely over, at which point I will either post my gains or my losses from the adventure.
When I say "it" I am referring to this entire phenomenon, not one short squeeze. I do not think these events, "it", is over. This is largely due to retail and institutional purchasing not really changing all that much since we found the bottom and established support at a staggering $60. This support was lost today and found new support at $50. There was very interesting ATH action and I'm not sure what to make of it.
Millions of bag holders (not just WSB) are still holding and in fact, averaging down, thereby purchasing more. These same bag holders are absolutely refusing to sell for such massive losses and in turn are becoming long term investors on the stock if another squeeze isn't to occur. People are picking up speculative positions in the off-chance of another squeeze. Others are determining this as a fair value for the company, not fundamentally, but based on the future prospects of Ryan Cohen and team. Finally, it is nowhere near leaving the global stage with important upcoming dates that we will discuss later.
To examine why it isn't over let's look at both sides of the argument:

Bulls claim it's not over for many reasons that you can find in the hundreds of other bullish posts, so I won't bore you with those details. My argument on the bull side is more along the lines of what I listed above.
Bears claim it is over because there was a 2250% price increase over the course of two weeks, therefore this must be a short squeeze.

I think we can all agree, bear or bull, that something happened. A 2250% increase certainly isn't nothing. The question is...what? I see several possibilities and would like to discuss them in the comments.

The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze.
The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze, but the price increase was mainly hype and gamma squeezes.
The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes.
Some combination of the above 3.

First, the data:
Based on morningstar the short interest is showing 78.46%. Now, I think the website is having some issues storing cookies because it will show the outdated 226% unless you open it up in incognito.
Market watch is showing 41.95%
This spread is interesting for sure, my thoughts are some of these calculations are including "synthetic longs" introduced by S3.
It is extremely possible to manipulate these numbers via illegal methods and even legal methods using options. Please see this SEC document to explain how this would work. I am not trying to convince anyone to fit my narrative, but these things occur far more commonly than one would expect. The reasoning is because the fines for committing the crime are far less costly than letting the event take place. Please see FINRA's website for the long, and frequent list of fines being dealt out due to manipulation. A common culprit? Lying about short volume.
Let's use the absolute worst case scenario being reported of 41.95%, which mind you is still extremely high for one stock:
The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze
What's interesting here is even if the shorts 100% covered all of their positions, they very well could have shorted on the way back down. Why wouldn't you? It would be insane to not open a short position when this hit nearly $500 especially if you lost half of your companies money; what better way to get it back? For the remainder of this thesis, I will be assuming that some of the short positions that exist are newly opened positions at a higher price unless someone has a counter-claim as to why that wouldn't be possible/probable.
That would mean 226% was covered on the way up and another 41.95% was reopened on the way back down. Based on the volume and price changes throughout the past two weeks this simply doesn't pass the math check.
The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze.
Again, using 41.95% this is highly likely and the most reasonable case. Some, probably the worst positions, were covered on the way up.
I think this is precisely what happened, we had some partial shorts covering but for the most part it was gamma squeezes, hype, and FOMO whereby the price started climbing so rapidly it became smarter for the shorts to just wait out the bubble than to actually cover all of their positions.
Again, we fall into a "what-if" scenario regarding shorting on the way back down.
The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes.
This scenario does not pass the math check using the 41.95% figure.
If the data is being manipulated then this becomes very interesting because if some of the worst positions are still open then that means all of these HF's losses that were reported were strictly interest and they are simply waiting this out for as long as it takes making back their losses on their newly opened short positions in t $300-$400 range.
Sadly, this puts us in the guessing range yet again. We can do the math and see it's possible this scenario exists, however, we would be comparing it against losses reported by the entities that were being squeezed.
There are way to many what-if's for me to me consider this a possibility, but I can't write it off completely.
Some combination of the above 3.
Truthfully, this isn't worth examining just yet. There would be far to many "what-if's" to address, this is something that could be address at the later dates that we will get to shortly.
Now, I've heard it a lot regarding the 02/09 data. "It's two weeks old". Well, that is always the case. The FINRA short data is always two weeks old and suggesting that we can't pull any information from it at all is asinine. Where it gets quite murky, is the data includes 01/27 information. This was a day unlike any other in this saga.
I will take this moment to address the following upcoming catalysts and when I truly think this will be done; one way or the other.
Today's data 02/09, was very important because if it showed an extremely low percentage then we know shorts have exited and did not re-enter and this is completely done. Given the data does not reflect that, we now must turn to several events that could act as catalysts for either a further squeeze or a complete shutdown.
02/19 - In my last post, I discussed the Failure To Deliver (FTD) conundrum. I do need some help figuring out the exact expiration date. From here "The close-out requirement states that a participant of a clearing agency needs to take immediate action to close 4 out a fail to deliver position in a threshold security that has persisted for 13 consecutive settlement days by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity."
The exact date is slightly irrelevant because I highly doubt all of these FTD's are going to deliver on the same exact day. This site, while it isn't an official channel seems to be doing a good job of tracking data. If you want to learn more about FTD's and the implications there please visit that site or review my last post which has links to follow for further reading.
02/18 - Keith Gill aka u/DeepFuckingValue will testify before congress and RH CEO Vladimir will be attending. This can go several ways which can lead to an SEC trading halt on GameStop or with evidence that proves foul play occurred. Who knows? It will certainly be interesting and I don't even to speculate on the market reaction to this even because it could go a ton of different ways; it will be an important date nonetheless
02/24 - The next FINRA short interest information will be made readily available to the public. This will be far more interesting and helpful information because it won't include the insane volatility of January, but it will also highlight the newest short positions. This data will help further drive where I think this is all going to end. It's possible that shorts opened new positions at $50 thinking it was going back to $12. Let's not speculate too much here either, it's just another dataset that will bring light to the direction this is headed.
03/25 - GameStop ER. This is big too for several reasons. First, this will include the console sales cycle which historically has done well for GameStop. A typical buy the hype, sell the news event. It will be interesting to see how the market reacts leading up to this ER, maybe people won't even touch GME leading up to then due to the recent volatility, but if they do, and if there is still a lot of short interest, this too could force shorts to begin covering. Another critical part of this ER is Ryan Cohen. This will be the first time this new board addresses the public with their plans for the future and for the first time since this entire adventure began, the "dying brick and mortar" narrative will finally begin to change in the public eye. That is still the common misconception regarding GameStop, that it is a dying brick and mortar retailer where nothing has changed. This hasn't been the case for around 6 months now, but this will be the first time it is publicly address. The headlines surrounding GameStop's future plans will be very interesting to read and the markets reaction will be far more interesting.
I have been asked a lot what my PT is and when I expect the squeeze to happen, but let me be clear. Very seldom do squeezes "just happen". In fact, short squeezes are far more common than one would think, they just typically happen over months, if not years and the shorts cover on dips so you don't even notice it's happening. In order to force a squeeze, you need to hold a decent amount of shorts underwater. Soon one will crack and start closing their position, this leads to a series of shorts closing their positions skyrocketing the price until more and more shorts need to cover. This is rare.
I hope this narrative of purchasing heavily shorted companies comes to a close soon because a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money simply buying up companies because they are heavily bet against. Catalysts and massive changes need to occur like overhauling your entire business as is the case with GameStop.
Normally, shorts will close their positions one at a time, covering on dips and you don't even notice it's happening. In times where you see a price rise of seemingly no news could very well be shorts closing their positions because their research led them to realize this company is on the road to recovery.
I digress. Given the most recent data and the multiple upcoming catalysts I am still very bullish on a GME short squeeze. My post from quite some time ago illustrated the importance of catalysts regarding a short squeeze, this is still very much the case. The first run was interrupted and the second run won't happen with magic, it requires a catalyst. Another post was titled For those who do not understand the inevitable GME short squeeze, was at the time "inevitable" because math. That is no longer the case. It is no longer inevitable but it is still possible.
I want to be clear: This is not nearly as close to a sure thing as it once was and it depends on a lot of different factors. One of the largest is the people. Granted, a lot of what's happening now is in the hands of institutions but millions of retailers holding their positions to the grave certainly helps the institutional buyers have more faith in their play to continue a squeeze.
SO WHAT DO I THINK
I think shorts certainly covered some of their positions, but not all. I also firmly believe a significant amount of short positions were opened on the way back down by both HF's and individuals. Some certainly positioned high, but based on sentiment, it appears a lot of people think GME is fairly valued around $20 (which I disagree with but let's use that for the time being). That would mean shorts would have no problem opening positions at 100,70,60, even $50.
42% is still very high which means a squeeze is inevitable so long as the company continues in a positive path. However, squeezes typically aren't as abrupt as people think. They are actually quite common, in fact another position I'm heavily invested in is SPCE and they have been going through a squeeze for several weeks and will continue to squeeze so long as news continues to be positive.
How would we get an abrupt short squeeze? A massive bull run. The new shorts that entered at lower levels wouldn't be too hard to catch, however, they are probably low volume, so when they buy to close, it won't be large enough volumes for massive peaks, but a bull run very well could lead to these lower tiered shorts closing, triggering a gamma squeeze. If gamma squeezes are made week over week then shorts at the higher end would have two options:

Close early and take profits
Wait it out because they are positioned so well that interest means nothing and they don't think there is any hope of us rising to those levels.

In the first case, them closing early would be a nice short squeeze to probably several hundred dollars, but it wouldn't break $1000.
To break $1000 we would need a big bull run to catch the shorts, trigger gamma squeezes, and keep momentum until they are caught and underwater. This is highly unlikely unless there is another global sentiment.
NOTE: ALL OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS I AM MAKING ARE BASED ON THE 42% REPORTING. IF IT IS IN FACT 78% THEN THE POSSIBILITY IS TREMENDOUSLY INCREASED FOR THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN.
SO WHEN DOES IT ALL END
My though is if by the end of March these catalysts were not enough to reignite the hype and squeeze, then it will essentially be over except in the case of a few circumstances:

A VW/Porche moment occurs where a large buyer picks up a large portion of the company.
Some other currently unknown catalyst appears seemingly out of thin air
The data was in fact manipulated. Regardless of what the data says, if the shorts did in fact lie about their short int to take the fine over being squeezed, then they will be squeezed regardless.

It is quite possible, that these catalysts and moments aren't enough to force a squeeze anymore especially if the shorts have repositioned really well. I will retain the mindset that this fateful January 2021 was not a short squeeze. However, that does not mean it will ever actually happen.
SO WHAT IS YOUR PLAY HOOMAN?
Well, I am long on GME which is why I didn't mind hopping back in even at outrageous prices. I will continue averaging down and don't plan on selling for quite some time, probably several years. The reason for this is I believe in Cohen and his team to turn this into something unexpected and I imagine an eventual ROI. Once this is all said and done and I think either the shorts truly have covered or they simply got away with it (Beginning of April), I will be posting my DD for GME as a long play regardless of the squeeze mechanics.
Thank you all for joining me on this wild journey. I hope we can discuss some of these points in the comments like adults and truly try to grasp this wild situation we are all in. There are extremes on both sides from "get over it, the squeeze happened" to a cult like mentality on the other extreme. I hope through discussion we can find the moderate approach and further understand the market mechanics at play.
Thanks for your time
WARNING: Until the squeeze business is over for good, this is a very volatile and risky play. Joining now for the hope of a potential round 2 squeeze should only be done in a speculative manner with money you are willing to lose. This is more akin to a gamble than it is investing. I think the current market price is fair given the future prospects of the company but do your own DD, I will not be releasing any until this squeeze is put to rest.
TL;DR: I am still bullish on this scenario even at 42%, if it really is 78% then I am extremely bullish. There are a plethora of upcoming catalysts that could reignite the squeeze but even if none are powerful enough, with Cohen's new direction we could expect good news for quite some time forcing shorts to exit on a more spread out timeline.
Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor. I do not wish to sway your opinion in either direction. I simply seek to examine this interesting and volatile situation via crowd sourcing. What you do with your money is entirely up to you.

ALL CREDIT GOES TO u/hooman_or_whatever
GME Short Squeeze What Comes Next Part 3
Hello all,
Before I begin I would like to address something I have been encountering on my posts in the comments section. I keep receiving some hate concerning my opinions and I want to be crystal clear that they are just that; opinions. I also want everyone to know that is is meant to be a dialog. I am not trying to pump this stock because truthfully, this goes far beyond us retail investors at this point. What I want is a dialog between all sides to examine this truly fascinating phenomenon that is occurring.
I would also like to clarify something, I am not a bagholder. I do currently hold bags because I own 336 shares at a $194.34 cost basis, however, that total amount is house money that was used from my profits on the first go around.
I also understand some people are tired of hearing about this because it's the same regurgitated form of someone else's post as it keeps circulating in an attempt to retain hype and drive future buying; this is not what this post is about. As investors and individuals involved in the world of finance, this situation should absolutely intrigue us whether or not we are involved. I am here to present my logic on the situation but encourage healthy discussion and debate.
This brings me to my first claim. This is not over. Now, I am not claiming that a squeeze will still occur, I am simply claiming it is not over, for better or for worse. Several things need to take place for this to be completely over, at which point I will either post my gains or my losses from the adventure.
When I say "it" I am referring to this entire phenomenon, not one short squeeze. I do not think these events, "it", is over. This is largely due to retail and institutional purchasing not really changing all that much since we found the bottom and established support at a staggering $60. This support was lost today and found new support at $50. There was very interesting ATH action and I'm not sure what to make of it.
Millions of bag holders (not just WSB) are still holding and in fact, averaging down, thereby purchasing more. These same bag holders are absolutely refusing to sell for such massive losses and in turn are becoming long term investors on the stock if another squeeze isn't to occur. People are picking up speculative positions in the off-chance of another squeeze. Others are determining this as a fair value for the company, not fundamentally, but based on the future prospects of Ryan Cohen and team. Finally, it is nowhere near leaving the global stage with important upcoming dates that we will discuss later.
To examine why it isn't over let's look at both sides of the argument:

Bulls claim it's not over for many reasons that you can find in the hundreds of other bullish posts, so I won't bore you with those details. My argument on the bull side is more along the lines of what I listed above.
Bears claim it is over because there was a 2250% price increase over the course of two weeks, therefore this must be a short squeeze.

I think we can all agree, bear or bull, that something happened. A 2250% increase certainly isn't nothing. The question is...what? I see several possibilities and would like to discuss them in the comments.

The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze.
The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze, but the price increase was mainly hype and gamma squeezes.
The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes.
Some combination of the above 3.

First, the data:
Based on morningstar the short interest is showing 78.46%. Now, I think the website is having some issues storing cookies because it will show the outdated 226% unless you open it up in incognito.
Market watch is showing 41.95%
This spread is interesting for sure, my thoughts are some of these calculations are including "synthetic longs" introduced by S3.
It is extremely possible to manipulate these numbers via illegal methods and even legal methods using options. Please see this SEC document to explain how this would work. I am not trying to convince anyone to fit my narrative, but these things occur far more commonly than one would expect. The reasoning is because the fines for committing the crime are far less costly than letting the event take place. Please see FINRA's website for the long, and frequent list of fines being dealt out due to manipulation. A common culprit? Lying about short volume.
Let's use the absolute worst case scenario being reported of 41.95%, which mind you is still extremely high for one stock:
The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze
What's interesting here is even if the shorts 100% covered all of their positions, they very well could have shorted on the way back down. Why wouldn't you? It would be insane to not open a short position when this hit nearly $500 especially if you lost half of your companies money; what better way to get it back? For the remainder of this thesis, I will be assuming that some of the short positions that exist are newly opened positions at a higher price unless someone has a counter-claim as to why that wouldn't be possible/probable.
That would mean 226% was covered on the way up and another 41.95% was reopened on the way back down. Based on the volume and price changes throughout the past two weeks this simply doesn't pass the math check.
The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze.
Again, using 41.95% this is highly likely and the most reasonable case. Some, probably the worst positions, were covered on the way up.
I think this is precisely what happened, we had some partial shorts covering but for the most part it was gamma squeezes, hype, and FOMO whereby the price started climbing so rapidly it became smarter for the shorts to just wait out the bubble than to actually cover all of their positions.
Again, we fall into a "what-if" scenario regarding shorting on the way back down.
The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes.
This scenario does not pass the math check using the 41.95% figure.
If the data is being manipulated then this becomes very interesting because if some of the worst positions are still open then that means all of these HF's losses that were reported were strictly interest and they are simply waiting this out for as long as it takes making back their losses on their newly opened short positions in t $300-$400 range.
Sadly, this puts us in the guessing range yet again. We can do the math and see it's possible this scenario exists, however, we would be comparing it against losses reported by the entities that were being squeezed.
There are way to many what-if's for me to me consider this a possibility, but I can't write it off completely.
Some combination of the above 3.
Truthfully, this isn't worth examining just yet. There would be far to many "what-if's" to address, this is something that could be address at the later dates that we will get to shortly.
Now, I've heard it a lot regarding the 02/09 data. "It's two weeks old". Well, that is always the case. The FINRA short data is always two weeks old and suggesting that we can't pull any information from it at all is asinine. Where it gets quite murky, is the data includes 01/27 information. This was a day unlike any other in this saga.
I will take this moment to address the following upcoming catalysts and when I truly think this will be done; one way or the other.
Today's data 02/09, was very important because if it showed an extremely low percentage then we know shorts have exited and did not re-enter and this is completely done. Given the data does not reflect that, we now must turn to several events that could act as catalysts for either a further squeeze or a complete shutdown.
02/19 - In my last post, I discussed the Failure To Deliver (FTD) conundrum. I do need some help figuring out the exact expiration date. From here "The close-out requirement states that a participant of a clearing agency needs to take immediate action to close 4 out a fail to deliver position in a threshold security that has persisted for 13 consecutive settlement days by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity."
The exact date is slightly irrelevant because I highly doubt all of these FTD's are going to deliver on the same exact day. This site, while it isn't an official channel seems to be doing a good job of tracking data. If you want to learn more about FTD's and the implications there please visit that site or review my last post which has links to follow for further reading.
02/18 - Keith Gill aka u/DeepFuckingValue will testify before congress and RH CEO Vladimir will be attending. This can go several ways which can lead to an SEC trading halt on GameStop or with evidence that proves foul play occurred. Who knows? It will certainly be interesting and I don't even to speculate on the market reaction to this even because it could go a ton of different ways; it will be an important date nonetheless
02/24 - The next FINRA short interest information will be made readily available to the public. This will be far more interesting and helpful information because it won't include the insane volatility of January, but it will also highlight the newest short positions. This data will help further drive where I think this is all going to end. It's possible that shorts opened new positions at $50 thinking it was going back to $12. Let's not speculate too much here either, it's just another dataset that will bring light to the direction this is headed.
03/25 - GameStop ER. This is big too for several reasons. First, this will include the console sales cycle which historically has done well for GameStop. A typical buy the hype, sell the news event. It will be interesting to see how the market reacts leading up to this ER, maybe people won't even touch GME leading up to then due to the recent volatility, but if they do, and if there is still a lot of short interest, this too could force shorts to begin covering. Another critical part of this ER is Ryan Cohen. This will be the first time this new board addresses the public with their plans for the future and for the first time since this entire adventure began, the "dying brick and mortar" narrative will finally begin to change in the public eye. That is still the common misconception regarding GameStop, that it is a dying brick and mortar retailer where nothing has changed. This hasn't been the case for around 6 months now, but this will be the first time it is publicly address. The headlines surrounding GameStop's future plans will be very interesting to read and the markets reaction will be far more interesting.
I have been asked a lot what my PT is and when I expect the squeeze to happen, but let me be clear. Very seldom do squeezes "just happen". In fact, short squeezes are far more common than one would think, they just typically happen over months, if not years and the shorts cover on dips so you don't even notice it's happening. In order to force a squeeze, you need to hold a decent amount of shorts underwater. Soon one will crack and start closing their position, this leads to a series of shorts closing their positions skyrocketing the price until more and more shorts need to cover. This is rare.
I hope this narrative of purchasing heavily shorted companies comes to a close soon because a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money simply buying up companies because they are heavily bet against. Catalysts and massive changes need to occur like overhauling your entire business as is the case with GameStop.
Normally, shorts will close their positions one at a time, covering on dips and you don't even notice it's happening. In times where you see a price rise of seemingly no news could very well be shorts closing their positions because their research led them to realize this company is on the road to recovery.
I digress. Given the most recent data and the multiple upcoming catalysts I am still very bullish on a GME short squeeze. My post from quite some time ago illustrated the importance of catalysts regarding a short squeeze, this is still very much the case. The first run was interrupted and the second run won't happen with magic, it requires a catalyst. Another post was titled For those who do not understand the inevitable GME short squeeze, was at the time "inevitable" because math. That is no longer the case. It is no longer inevitable but it is still possible.
I want to be clear: This is not nearly as close to a sure thing as it once was and it depends on a lot of different factors. One of the largest is the people. Granted, a lot of what's happening now is in the hands of institutions but millions of retailers holding their positions to the grave certainly helps the institutional buyers have more faith in their play to continue a squeeze.
SO WHAT DO I THINK
I think shorts certainly covered some of their positions, but not all. I also firmly believe a significant amount of short positions were opened on the way back down by both HF's and individuals. Some certainly positioned high, but based on sentiment, it appears a lot of people think GME is fairly valued around $20 (which I disagree with but let's use that for the time being). That would mean shorts would have no problem opening positions at 100,70,60, even $50.
42% is still very high which means a squeeze is inevitable so long as the company continues in a positive path. However, squeezes typically aren't as abrupt as people think. They are actually quite common, in fact another position I'm heavily invested in is SPCE and they have been going through a squeeze for several weeks and will continue to squeeze so long as news continues to be positive.
How would we get an abrupt short squeeze? A massive bull run. The new shorts that entered at lower levels wouldn't be too hard to catch, however, they are probably low volume, so when they buy to close, it won't be large enough volumes for massive peaks, but a bull run very well could lead to these lower tiered shorts closing, triggering a gamma squeeze. If gamma squeezes are made week over week then shorts at the higher end would have two options:

Close early and take profits
Wait it out because they are positioned so well that interest means nothing and they don't think there is any hope of us rising to those levels.

In the first case, them closing early would be a nice short squeeze to probably several hundred dollars, but it wouldn't break $1000.
To break $1000 we would need a big bull run to catch the shorts, trigger gamma squeezes, and keep momentum until they are caught and underwater. This is highly unlikely unless there is another global sentiment.
NOTE: ALL OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS I AM MAKING ARE BASED ON THE 42% REPORTING. IF IT IS IN FACT 78% THEN THE POSSIBILITY IS TREMENDOUSLY INCREASED FOR THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN.
SO WHEN DOES IT ALL END
My though is if by the end of March these catalysts were not enough to reignite the hype and squeeze, then it will essentially be over except in the case of a few circumstances:

A VW/Porche moment occurs where a large buyer picks up a large portion of the company.
Some other currently unknown catalyst appears seemingly out of thin air
The data was in fact manipulated. Regardless of what the data says, if the shorts did in fact lie about their short int to take the fine over being squeezed, then they will be squeezed regardless.

It is quite possible, that these catalysts and moments aren't enough to force a squeeze anymore especially if the shorts have repositioned really well. I will retain the mindset that this fateful January 2021 was not a short squeeze. However, that does not mean it will ever actually happen.
SO WHAT IS YOUR PLAY HOOMAN?
Well, I am long on GME which is why I didn't mind hopping back in even at outrageous prices. I will continue averaging down and don't plan on selling for quite some time, probably several years. The reason for this is I believe in Cohen and his team to turn this into something unexpected and I imagine an eventual ROI. Once this is all said and done and I think either the shorts truly have covered or they simply got away with it (Beginning of April), I will be posting my DD for GME as a long play regardless of the squeeze mechanics.
Thank you all for joining me on this wild journey. I hope we can discuss some of these points in the comments like adults and truly try to grasp this wild situation we are all in. There are extremes on both sides from "get over it, the squeeze happened" to a cult like mentality on the other extreme. I hope through discussion we can find the moderate approach and further understand the market mechanics at play.
Thanks for your time
WARNING: Until the squeeze business is over for good, this is a very volatile and risky play. Joining now for the hope of a potential round 2 squeeze should only be done in a speculative manner with money you are willing to lose. This is more akin to a gamble than it is investing. I think the current market price is fair given the future prospects of the company but do your own DD, I will not be releasing any until this squeeze is put to rest.
TL;DR: I am still bullish on this scenario even at 42%, if it really is 78% then I am extremely bullish. There are a plethora of upcoming catalysts that could reignite the squeeze but even if none are powerful enough, with Cohen's new direction we could expect good news for quite some time forcing shorts to exit on a more spread out timeline.
Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor. I do not wish to sway your opinion in either direction. I simply seek to examine this interesting and volatile situation via crowd sourcing. What you do with your money is entirely up to you.

Hello all
Some days ago I made a post that got a bit of attention (scopely_you_are_losing_touch_with_your_playerbase).
But my post did not focus enough on what can be done to help alleviate some of the problems we are seeing in the game right now. So therefor I will try to do a better job of that in this post. It’s not going to be perfect, probably not even close, but I really hope it can spark a discussion that Scopely, Cerebro in particular, can take some points from and try to make this game that we like so much, and make it that much better.
Before we go into the nitty gritty, I would like to say thank you for all the positive feedback I got on the last post. I had feared that it there would be a lot people throwing mud at each other or starting to bash Scopely. But most of you kept it sober and constructive, so I hope we can keep that tone.
With that said, this post can be a bit more dividing of the community, cause we all have one thing that we think is the most important thing to fix. And some of the solutions I am going to propose might not hit the spot for you or at all, but I hope it sparks a discussion.
This is going to be a long post, and I know that it will not go down as well as the first one, for one it is simply too long, but also because it gets too focused on what changes I would like to see. Cause we can all agree on that we want changes, but when we then have to discuss what those changes are, then we get more divided. I really want to point out that I don't expect everybody to agree on what I have written. And also that my native language isn't English, but I hope that my points still gets across.
But lets get into it...

Red Stars

We are going to start out with what I personally find to be the biggest issue in the game right now. I know that RTA is a more hot topic right now, but I find red stars to be the biggest issue.
Right now red stars are a double edged sword. Cause when you get the 5+ red drop on the new character you of course get happy. But with the droprates in mind, most of the time red stars leave you with a sour taste.
Getting 3 red stars or lower on a new good character is so deflating that even id you got good pulls on your last 2 characters, that goodwill is out the window straight away.
So what can we do to make red stars a bit better? I think the solution is in the silvegold promotion credits. If silver credits was added to red stars so that when you get a duplicate character, then you also get some promotion credits.
Here is how one solution could be, the numbers might have to change a bit, but this is just the general idea.
1-2 star dupe: 1 silver promotion credit
3-4 star dupe: 2 silver promotion credit
5 star dupe: 3 silver promotion credit
6 star dupe: 1 gold promotion credit
7 star dupe: 2 gold promotion credit
These are just numbers to showcase the idea. If we look at my pulls for Bishop then this is what it would have netted me (all my pulls where dupes apart from the 3 star Bishop):
20 1-2 star pulls = 20 silver credits
19 3-4 star pulls = 38 silver credits
6 5 star = 18 silver credits
Total = 76 silver credits.
Now that is not a lot, and I don’t think that would break the promotion system. But I do think that it would help with the bad feeling about red stars.
With this system red star orbs are still the driving factor, and if you get lucky then you still get happy, but now when you get unlucky, then at least you progressed a bit still by having more promotions credit.
I would also like to get rid of the promotion store. We have enough randomness in the game. If we could promote characters straight from the character screen, then the system would feel a lot better.
I get that the store is probably there to make people burn some cores when they are chasing that on character they want to bring up.
Also, let us update them way faster. Right now over a month passes on most new characters before they are even added to the store.
I think the worries from Scopely is that we would start hoarding, and then only spend on the “best” new characters. But I really don’t see that as a problem in the long run. Cause with the added focus on wider rosters you will still have to bring up more characters instead of focusing on a few.

RTA and the Battlepass

So this is the hottest topic right now, at least with the people that I talk to.
If we look to other games battlepasses are generally a positive thing, but in almost all of them they are also something that you can get done by playing the game as usual. I play PUBG and while the battlepass here is something that divides the community a bit, it is one that I like. Some days I just have to get some kills and I progress. Other days I have to get kills with a crossbow (I’m not good enough to get that done), but its all something I can do by playing the game as usual, I just have to pick up some other weapons than the “meta”.
Battlepasses are created for two things:
· Have people log in every day.
But in MSF people already have to do that, so the battlepass doesn’t do anything at all for that.
· Have people spend extra money, especially in FTP games.
If spenders got the possibility to buy all the prizes we get from the battlepass for 20$ without having to grind it out, then I am 100% sure that way more people would buy it. But with the current way its tied to the RTA I actually think you are just losing money.
The current form of battlepass that is implemented is really just an offer with extra steps.
In MSF you have tied the battlepass to a single gamemode, and that takes all the possible fun out of that game mode. No people I have talked to likes RTA, not 1 person has something positive to say about it actually. But when you ask around, then a lot of people really started to like the balanced draft.
So what can we do to make this a bit better?
Solution 1: make us able to complete the objectives in other gamemodes. And if you really want us to grind the RTA also, then make it count double so that there is an incentive to play it if you want to get it over with as fast a possible.
And that is where I think the biggest problem with RTA is right now. Its not fun, it is only a grind. The way I play it is to open RTA and press auto when I’m at work. I don’t even look at it, I just wait for the winneloser screen to pop up, and then go in and do it again. I get annoyed when people are slow, or if they don’t load in.
As I see it there are 0 positive things about RTA right now. And the biggest problem I have is that no one I asked could actually find a way to make RTA fun with the current setup.
Leagues and events could be a saving grace. But since we don’t even know what Scopley have in mind about these we can’t event try to make that better. I’m afraid that events is just like the battlepass, but I think that leagues could take RTA in the right direction. Cause if you make RTA about winning and trying your best, then its suddenly competitive instead of just a mindless grind.
And I think it goes without saying, but I’m going to do it anyways, please revert the changes you made in 5.1 about quitters.

Doom raid

After my original post I was told that the Doom raid wouldn’t actually be for a limited time. And that changes my view a lot. Cause I do like that there are new and hard/almost impossible challenges. I was only worried if it was a limited that most people wouldn’t ever be able to get in there before it was taken down. But if its there to stay, then I don’t mind the current difficulty, even though I won’t step in there for at least another 6 months at best.
But the point about the prizes still stand. They are simply not enough. Not even close actually. And right now only the top alliances are even able to get them, so you have created a “the rich getting richer” scenario, cause the prizes in there are what makes you able to compete in there.

Availability of new characters

I personally don’t mind the cadence of new releases of characters, new characters are what drives the game forward. But you have to make them available faster. The last couple of releases we have seen them added to orbs pretty fast (Longshot or Shatterstar was even added as their event was going on), and that is a small step in the right direction. But lets take a look at the most grievous current unfarmable character, Beast, he has been in the game for over 7 months (possible longer, I couldn’t find the exact date he was released.) without being farmable. That is simply not good enough.
I know that he didn’t sell that well, and that Scopely has probably tried to wait with making him farmable to see if they could make more money of him, especially now that he actually seems to have a good place on the Axmen, I get it. I personally unlocked Beast at 3 stars, and I have not used him in anything than a throwaway blitz team. Is that fun? Is that something that makes me want to invest further into him? I think you know the answer.
A possible solution to this problem is to add them to some of the stores faster. I understand why you are hesitant to add anything newish to the blitz, raid or arena store. Cause people now have so many credits stockpiled that any further income on them once they are added are out the window. But I think you can add them at a much higher price point in the stores. That does two things:
You now give people something to use their credits on that they actually want, and at a higher price you are getting people to deplete their resources faster and taking both the blitz and arena store economy to a place where we once again have to make decisions on what to invest into. But at least you are giving us something to invest into. As of right now I have 150k blitz credits, so when you added Electro at 500, that wont even make a dent into that economy. But if you added new characters faster at a premium price, lets say 5-10,000 credits. Then you are giving us something to invest in, and you are bringing the economy to a better place. They of course shouldn’t stay at the premium price forever, at given intervals they should have their prices reduced until they hit the 500 credits that normal characters in the store has.
I personally don’t mind that a few select characters are orbs only for a while. I get why they are that. But I also understand the frustration that a lot of players feel about orb only characters. I only mention this so that a discussion can spark from it.
If we look at the prices on buying new characters I think we can all agree that they are too high. But I get why they are high and I don’t think that will change. I personally don’t find it to be that big of a problem, but I understand why a lot of people do. I also think the problem would be alleviated a bit, if we could start farming them in one way or the other sooner. Then players who really want the newest characters can pay and be ahead of the meta, and the people who can’t/won’t pay can still try to catch up without having to wait half a year, where the ones they can now farm are probably power crept anyway.

New player problems

This is only something that I have heard a bit about, and only mention it so that others can chime in.
But right now there is a huge scarcity of blue ability mats. And there is no real good way of farming or even buying them.
I think the problem stems from the powerlevel of characters, so now newer players don’t have to spend time on the lower raids that actually give these mats like we did when we started out. It doesn’t take a long time for a new player to be able to get into an alliance that does at least U6 or even U7, where these mats aren’t something they get.
A simple solution that I could see working out is to simply remove green and blue ability mats from the game. I doubt that Scopley are making any money on these mats, and for people that have played a long time these mats are a non issue and never will be cause we have pretty much infinite of them.
As I said, I don’t know too much about this problem as I only just heard about it on a stream not so long ago. But I wanted to add it to the list anyways. And there are probably more new player problems that I don’t even know of. So please add that to the discussion below, but also please try to be constructive about it, not just “We want more”.

Skillitary/new teams videos

We like that we can see new teams in action, but when you showcase them you have to be upfront about them. Skillitary has left a sour taste in the mouth of most people who bought into them.
Yes, they can win against Marauders if brought up to the same level, but its still a gamble and more luckbased than playing with actual skill (on pun(isher) intended). But if you miss that first disrupt on Stryfe, then the whole team just crumbles. So if you showcase a new team as the new team to take out the “big bad”, then they have to at least be able to punch up a bit on them. I’m not saying that they should just win 100% of the time, but with Skillitary they even struggle on punch downs.
If Shadowlands turn out to be as big of a letdown as Skillitary I think that will make you lose a lot of goodwill and at this point in the game, that will be very hard to gain back.

War

I am generally pretty fine with war and how it plays out. There are two pain points that keeps popping up tho. The most obvious one is the matchmaking sometimes makes you go up against unwinnable opponents. And that does make it feel very bad. But I also understand why you can’t always have it close to your own TCP. Cause who would the top alliances ever face if it was only trying to match on TCP?
If it was changed to only factor in TCP, then we would suddenly have alliances in the top leagues, who where a 10th of the biggest alliances, but they would never have to face them because of the TCP difference. So the current matchmaking system is probably the lesser of the two evils. And yes, I know that it is very demoralizing to get 50m+ punch-ups week after week. But I think that stems from a problem that is unfixable, and that is the huge TCP difference between alliances. If we take a look at Legion_of_Cabal they currently have a combined TCP of 400 million. If we look at the 100th most powerful alliance they right now have a combined TCP of 251 million. That is such a huge difference that war matchmaking will just not ever be perfect.
The second pain point of war is time spent. And in that also when you have to spend that time. Luckily my own alliance aren’t too focused on war, we are only G4. Most of the time we face alliances that wont clear us and we wont clear them. But higher up in the leagues, clearing as fast as possible is the only way to win. And that means getting on every time new energy is available, also if that means disrupting your sleep schedule to do that. I personally would never do that at where I am in life, but I understand why. I was fighting for world first in WoW back in the day, so I get why people do it. The problem is that they have to do it 3 times a week. Instead of just, in the case of WoW, when new content comes out. Its just not healthy.
I don’t have any experience in high level war in MSF, so I hope that some of you that do can weigh in on this with ideas how to make it better.

Resource bottlenecks

This is a sore point for everybody in the game. I think we all understand why bottlenecks are a thing, and we all probably understand that it is also a necessary thing in a game to have something to grind for. But in the current state of the game, there are simply way too many bottlenecks.
My proposed solution would be as follows:
Get rid of green and blue ability mats. They serve no purpose anymore other than hindering new players from catching up. Then when the next level of ability levels are introduced, then you can add new currency for that and have us start out on the same level. Spenders will then be able to get a head start as always, and that is fine. Also take away the gold cost for leveling up abilities, or at least lower them.
Get rid of training mats all together. Or change it so that they are the only currency needed to level up characters. It simply can’t be both gold and training mats unless they are giving them out a bit more freely. And I know it’s a balancing act, cause you don’t want people to have too many resources, and if we had infinite resources, that would also be bad for the game, as there is nothing fun in having everything given to you.
If the above are implemented, then I don’t even think you have to make any changes to the gold we gain now.
We of course don’t know how much money you make out of creating these scarcities, and I get it if the metrics show that you can’t just make them go away. But then at least acknowledge the problem that players are feeling about the bottlenecks. You don’t have to fix it in one big swoop.
Gear is another bottleneck, but one that I personally find better balanced. Sure, right now getting G15 isn’t easy, but I also don’t think it should be easy. A change that I would love to see however is a better way to be able to focus on the gear that we need. Right now its all random, even the offers you made us are random. But again, I get if your metrics show something else and that you are doing this to make the most profit. But sometimes the most profit is not the way to go, if the cost is that you lose players by doing it.

Help us help you

In my first post I stayed away from mentioning bugs on purpose. Bugs will happen, and if you address them as fast as possible then that is probably ok.
But you have a limitless amount of people who would gladly help you test upcoming patches for free. Right now you even have an envoy program that you clearly aren’t using to its full potential. Have them help you out with testing new features.
Just look at ISO8, when you first announced it people where up in arms about it. But you decided to have the envoys weigh in, and it has been the best and most polished feature you have ever brought out.

Finishing remarks

Right now the game is in a rut, I don’t think that is up for discussion. It is natural for a 3 year old game, mobile at that, to lose players over time. But I still believe that you, Scopley, have the bones of a game that could live on for a long time. But you need to treat it a bit more as a game than as moneymaker. It can be both, and it can be successful at both.
Make it fun again, that’s what games are about, entertainment. There has to be things that are hard or almost impossible to get, but it just can’t be every aspect of the game.
You said you wanted to look at reducing the low quality screen time, and then added RTA. I hope you can see how that makes us have trust issues.
I know this post isn’t perfect in any way, and I am very well aware that it might not change a thing. But I do hope that will, I really really do.
If you made it all the way to the end, then thank you for reading it all, or at least skimming the points that you feel are the most important.
And please, again, lets have a civil discussion about the issues we as players feel. And remember that even if we feel something is wrong, it might not actually be wrong for the game.

Reposting because for whatever reason once this post started gaining traction in stocks it was removed.
stocks reactivated the post, I posted this in several places please comment there as it has the most opinions to go around and I’m not jumping all over the place
Hello all,
Before I begin I would like to address something I have been encountering on my posts in the comments section. I keep receiving some hate concerning my opinions and I want to be crystal clear that they are just that; opinions. I also want everyone to know that is is meant to be a dialog. I am not trying to pump this stock because truthfully, this goes far beyond us retail investors at this point. What I want is a dialog between all sides to examine this truly fascinating phenomenon that is occurring.
I would also like to clarify something, I am not a bagholder. I do currently hold bags because I own 336 shares at a $194.34 cost basis, however, that total amount is house money that was used from my profits on the first go around.
I also understand some people are tired of hearing about this because it's the same regurgitated form of someone else's post as it keeps circulating in an attempt to retain hype and drive future buying; this is not what this post is about. As investors and individuals involved in the world of finance, this situation should absolutely intrigue us whether or not we are involved. I am here to present my logic on the situation but encourage healthy discussion and debate.
This brings me to my first claim. This is not over. Now, I am not claiming that a squeeze will still occur, I am simply claiming it is not over, for better or for worse. Several things need to take place for this to be completely over, at which point I will either post my gains or my losses from the adventure.
When I say "it" I am referring to this entire phenomenon, not one short squeeze. I do not think these events, "it", is over. This is largely due to retail and institutional purchasing not really changing all that much since we found the bottom and established support at a staggering $60. This support was lost today and found new support at $50. There was very interesting ATH action and I'm not sure what to make of it.
Millions of bag holders (not just WSB) are still holding and in fact, averaging down, thereby purchasing more. These same bag holders are absolutely refusing to sell for such massive losses and in turn are becoming long term investors on the stock if another squeeze isn't to occur. People are picking up speculative positions in the off-chance of another squeeze. Others are determining this as a fair value for the company, not fundamentally, but based on the future prospects of Ryan Cohen and team. Finally, it is nowhere near leaving the global stage with important upcoming dates that we will discuss later.
To examine why it isn't over let's look at both sides of the argument:

Bulls claim it's not over for many reasons that you can find in the hundreds of other bullish posts, so I won't bore you with those details. My argument on the bull side is more along the lines of what I listed above.
Bears claim it is over because there was a 2250% price increase over the course of two weeks, therefore this must be a short squeeze.

I think we can all agree, bear or bull, that something happened. A 2250% increase certainly isn't nothing. The question is...what? I see several possibilities and would like to discuss them in the comments.

The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze.
The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze, but the price increase was mainly hype and gamma squeezes.
The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes.
Some combination of the above 3.

First, the data:
Based on morningstar the short interest is showing 78.46%. Now, I think the website is having some issues storing cookies because it will show the outdated 226% unless you open it up in incognito.
Market watch is showing 41.95%
This spread is interesting for sure, my thoughts are some of these calculations are including "synthetic longs" introduced by S3.
It is extremely possible to manipulate these numbers via illegal methods and even legal methods using options. Please see this SEC document to explain how this would work. I am not trying to convince anyone to fit my narrative, but these things occur far more commonly than one would expect. The reasoning is because the fines for committing the crime are far less costly than letting the event take place. Please see FINRA's website for the long, and frequent list of fines being dealt out due to manipulation. A common culprit? Lying about short volume.
Let's use the absolute worst case scenario being reported of 41.95%, which mind you is still extremely high for one stock:
The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze
What's interesting here is even if the shorts 100% covered all of their positions, they very well could have shorted on the way back down. Why wouldn't you? It would be insane to not open a short position when this hit nearly $500 especially if you lost half of your companies money; what better way to get it back? For the remainder of this thesis, I will be assuming that some of the short positions that exist are newly opened positions at a higher price unless someone has a counter-claim as to why that wouldn't be possible/probable.
That would mean 226% was covered on the way up and another 41.95% was reopened on the way back down. Based on the volume and price changes throughout the past two weeks this simply doesn't pass the math check.
The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze.
Again, using 41.95% this is highly likely and the most reasonable case. Some, probably the worst positions, were covered on the way up.
I think this is precisely what happened, we had some partial shorts covering but for the most part it was gamma squeezes, hype, and FOMO whereby the price started climbing so rapidly it became smarter for the shorts to just wait out the bubble than to actually cover all of their positions.
Again, we fall into a "what-if" scenario regarding shorting on the way back down.
The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes.
This scenario does not pass the math check using the 41.95% figure.
If the data is being manipulated then this becomes very interesting because if some of the worst positions are still open then that means all of these HF's losses that were reported were strictly interest and they are simply waiting this out for as long as it takes making back their losses on their newly opened short positions in t $300-$400 range.
Sadly, this puts us in the guessing range yet again. We can do the math and see it's possible this scenario exists, however, we would be comparing it against losses reported by the entities that were being squeezed.
There are way to many what-if's for me to me consider this a possibility, but I can't write it off completely.
Some combination of the above 3.
Truthfully, this isn't worth examining just yet. There would be far to many "what-if's" to address, this is something that could be address at the later dates that we will get to shortly.
Now, I've heard it a lot regarding the 02/09 data. "It's two weeks old". Well, that is always the case. The FINRA short data is always two weeks old and suggesting that we can't pull any information from it at all is asinine. Where it gets quite murky, is the data includes 01/27 information. This was a day unlike any other in this saga.
I will take this moment to address the following upcoming catalysts and when I truly think this will be done; one way or the other.
Today's data 02/09, was very important because if it showed an extremely low percentage then we know shorts have exited and did not re-enter and this is completely done. Given the data does not reflect that, we now must turn to several events that could act as catalysts for either a further squeeze or a complete shutdown.
02/19 - In my last post, I discussed the Failure To Deliver (FTD) conundrum. I do need some help figuring out the exact expiration date. From here "The close-out requirement states that a participant of a clearing agency needs to take immediate action to close 4 out a fail to deliver position in a threshold security that has persisted for 13 consecutive settlement days by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity."
The exact date is slightly irrelevant because I highly doubt all of these FTD's are going to deliver on the same exact day. This site, while it isn't an official channel seems to be doing a good job of tracking data. If you want to learn more about FTD's and the implications there please visit that site or review my last post which has links to follow for further reading.
02/18 - Keith Gill aka u/DeepFuckingValue will testify before congress and RH CEO Vladimir will be attending. This can go several ways which can lead to an SEC trading halt on GameStop or with evidence that proves foul play occurred. Who knows? It will certainly be interesting and I don't even to speculate on the market reaction to this even because it could go a ton of different ways; it will be an important date nonetheless
02/24 - The next FINRA short interest information will be made readily available to the public. This will be far more interesting and helpful information because it won't include the insane volatility of January, but it will also highlight the newest short positions. This data will help further drive where I think this is all going to end. It's possible that shorts opened new positions at $50 thinking it was going back to $12. Let's not speculate too much here either, it's just another dataset that will bring light to the direction this is headed.
03/05 - GameStop ER. This is big too for several reasons. First, this will include the console sales cycle which historically has done well for GameStop. A typical buy the hype, sell the news event. It will be interesting to see how the market reacts leading up to this ER, maybe people won't even touch GME leading up to then due to the recent volatility, but if they do, and if there is still a lot of short interest, this too could force shorts to begin covering. Another critical part of this ER is Ryan Cohen. This will be the first time this new board addresses the public with their plans for the future and for the first time since this entire adventure began, the "dying brick and mortar" narrative will finally begin to change in the public eye. That is still the common misconception regarding GameStop, that it is a dying brick and mortar retailer where nothing has changed. This hasn't been the case for around 6 months now, but this will be the first time it is publicly address. The headlines surrounding GameStop's future plans will be very interesting to read and the markets reaction will be far more interesting.
I have been asked a lot what my PT is and when I expect the squeeze to happen, but let me be clear. Very seldom do squeezes "just happen". In fact, short squeezes are far more common than one would think, they just typically happen over months, if not years and the shorts cover on dips so you don't even notice it's happening. In order to force a squeeze, you need to hold a decent amount of shorts underwater. Soon one will crack and start closing their position, this leads to a series of shorts closing their positions skyrocketing the price until more and more shorts need to cover. This is rare.
I hope this narrative of purchasing heavily shorted companies comes to a close soon because a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money simply buying up companies because they are heavily bet against. Catalysts and massive changes need to occur like overhauling your entire business as is the case with GameStop.
Normally, shorts will close their positions one at a time, covering on dips and you don't even notice it's happening. In times where you see a price rise of seemingly no news could very well be shorts closing their positions because their research led them to realize this company is on the road to recovery.
I digress. Given the most recent data and the multiple upcoming catalysts I am still very bullish on a GME short squeeze. My post from quite some time ago illustrated the importance of catalysts regarding a short squeeze, this is still very much the case. The first run was interrupted and the second run won't happen with magic, it requires a catalyst. Another post was titled For those who do not understand the inevitable GME short squeeze, was at the time "inevitable" because math. That is no longer the case. It is no longer inevitable but it is still possible.
I want to be clear: This is not nearly as close to a sure thing as it once was and it depends on a lot of different factors. One of the largest is the people. Granted, a lot of what's happening now is in the hands of institutions but millions of retailers holding their positions to the grave certainly helps the institutional buyers have more faith in their play to continue a squeeze.
SO WHAT DO I THINK
I think shorts certainly covered some of their positions, but not all. I also firmly believe a significant amount of short positions were opened on the way back down by both HF's and individuals. Some certainly positioned high, but based on sentiment, it appears a lot of people think GME is fairly valued around $20 (which I disagree with but let's use that for the time being). That would mean shorts would have no problem opening positions at 100,70,60, even $50.
42% is still very high which means a squeeze is inevitable so long as the company continues in a positive path. However, squeezes typically aren't as abrupt as people think. They are actually quite common, in fact another position I'm heavily invested in is SPCE and they have been going through a squeeze for several weeks and will continue to squeeze so long as news continues to be positive.
How would we get an abrupt short squeeze? A massive bull run. The new shorts that entered at lower levels wouldn't be too hard to catch, however, they are probably low volume, so when they buy to close, it won't be large enough volumes for massive peaks, but a bull run very well could lead to these lower tiered shorts closing, triggering a gamma squeeze. If gamma squeezes are made week over week then shorts at the higher end would have two options:

Close early and take profits
Wait it out because they are positioned so well that interest means nothing and they don't think there is any hope of us rising to those levels.

In the first case, them closing early would be a nice short squeeze to probably several hundred dollars, but it wouldn't break $1000.
To break $1000 we would need a big bull run to catch the shorts, trigger gamma squeezes, and keep momentum until they are caught and underwater. This is highly unlikely unless there is another global sentiment.
NOTE: ALL OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS I AM MAKING ARE BASED ON THE 42% REPORTING. IF IT IS IN FACT 78% THEN THE POSSIBILITY IS TREMENDOUSLY INCREASED FOR THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN.
SO WHEN DOES IT ALL END
My though is if by the end of March these catalysts were not enough to reignite the hype and squeeze, then it will essentially be over except in the case of a few circumstances:

A VW/Porche moment occurs where a large buyer picks up a large portion of the company.
Some other currently unknown catalyst appears seemingly out of thin air
The data was in fact manipulated. Regardless of what the data says, if the shorts did in fact lie about their short int to take the fine over being squeezed, then they will be squeezed regardless.

It is quite possible, that these catalysts and moments aren't enough to force a squeeze anymore especially if the shorts have repositioned really well. I will retain the mindset that this fateful January 2021 was not a short squeeze. However, that does not mean it will ever actually happen.
SO WHAT IS YOUR PLAY HOOMAN?
Well, I am long on GME which is why I didn't mind hopping back in even at outrageous prices. I will continue averaging down and don't plan on selling for quite some time, probably several years. The reason for this is I believe in Cohen and his team to turn this into something unexpected and I imagine an eventual ROI. Once this is all said and done and I think either the shorts truly have covered or they simply got away with it (Mid March-ish), I will be posting my DD for GME as a long play regardless of the squeeze mechanics.
Thank you all for joining me on this wild journey. I hope we can discuss some of these points in the comments like adults and truly try to grasp this wild situation we are all in. There are extremes on both sides from "get over it, the squeeze happened" to a cult like mentality on the other extreme. I hope through discussion we can find the moderate approach and further understand the market mechanics at play.
Thanks for your time
WARNING: Until the squeeze business is over for good, this is a very volatile and risky play. Joining now for the hope of a potential round 2 squeeze should only be done in a speculative manner with money you are willing to lose. This is more akin to a gamble than it is investing. I think the current market price is fair given the future prospects of the company but do your own DD, I will not be releasing any until this squeeze is put to rest.
TL;DR: I am still bullish on this scenario even at 42%, if it really is 78% then I am extremely bullish. There are a plethora of upcoming catalysts that could reignite the squeeze but even if none are powerful enough, with Cohen's new direction we could expect good news for quite some time forcing shorts to exit on a more spread out timeline.
Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor. I do not wish to sway your opinion in either direction. I simply seek to examine this interesting and volatile situation via crowd sourcing. What you do with your money is entirely up to you.

EDIT: the post has been re-activated on stocks please comment there as it has the most traffic so I’m not jumping back and forth trying to respond. Appreciate everyone!
GME Short Squeeze What Comes Next Part 3
Hello all,
Before I begin I would like to address something I have been encountering on my posts in the comments section. I keep receiving some hate concerning my opinions and I want to be crystal clear that they are just that; opinions. I also want everyone to know that is is meant to be a dialog. I am not trying to pump this stock because truthfully, this goes far beyond us retail investors at this point. What I want is a dialog between all sides to examine this truly fascinating phenomenon that is occurring.
I would also like to clarify something, I am not a bagholder. I do currently hold bags because I own 336 shares at a $194.34 cost basis, however, that total amount is house money that was used from my profits on the first go around.
I also understand some people are tired of hearing about this because it's the same regurgitated form of someone else's post as it keeps circulating in an attempt to retain hype and drive future buying; this is not what this post is about. As investors and individuals involved in the world of finance, this situation should absolutely intrigue us whether or not we are involved. I am here to present my logic on the situation but encourage healthy discussion and debate.
This brings me to my first claim. This is not over. Now, I am not claiming that a squeeze will still occur, I am simply claiming it is not over, for better or for worse. Several things need to take place for this to be completely over, at which point I will either post my gains or my losses from the adventure.
When I say "it" I am referring to this entire phenomenon, not one short squeeze. I do not think these events, "it", is over. This is largely due to retail and institutional purchasing not really changing all that much since we found the bottom and established support at a staggering $60. This support was lost today and found new support at $50. There was very interesting ATH action and I'm not sure what to make of it.
Millions of bag holders (not just WSB) are still holding and in fact, averaging down, thereby purchasing more. These same bag holders are absolutely refusing to sell for such massive losses and in turn are becoming long term investors on the stock if another squeeze isn't to occur. People are picking up speculative positions in the off-chance of another squeeze. Others are determining this as a fair value for the company, not fundamentally, but based on the future prospects of Ryan Cohen and team. Finally, it is nowhere near leaving the global stage with important upcoming dates that we will discuss later.
To examine why it isn't over let's look at both sides of the argument:

Bulls claim it's not over for many reasons that you can find in the hundreds of other bullish posts, so I won't bore you with those details. My argument on the bull side is more along the lines of what I listed above.
Bears claim it is over because there was a 2250% price increase over the course of two weeks, therefore this must be a short squeeze.

I think we can all agree, bear or bull, that something happened. A 2250% increase certainly isn't nothing. The question is...what? I see several possibilities and would like to discuss them in the comments.

The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze.
The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze, but the price increase was mainly hype and gamma squeezes.
The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes.
Some combination of the above 3.

First, the data:
Based on morningstar the short interest is showing 78.46%. Now, I think the website is having some issues storing cookies because it will show the outdated 226% unless you open it up in incognito.
Market watch is showing 41.95%
This spread is interesting for sure, my thoughts are some of these calculations are including "synthetic longs" introduced by S3.
It is extremely possible to manipulate these numbers via illegal methods and even legal methods using options. Please see this SEC document to explain how this would work. I am not trying to convince anyone to fit my narrative, but these things occur far more commonly than one would expect. The reasoning is because the fines for committing the crime are far less costly than letting the event take place. Please see FINRA's website for the long, and frequent list of fines being dealt out due to manipulation. A common culprit? Lying about short volume.
Let's use the absolute worst case scenario being reported of 41.95%, which mind you is still extremely high for one stock:
The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze
What's interesting here is even if the shorts 100% covered all of their positions, they very well could have shorted on the way back down. Why wouldn't you? It would be insane to not open a short position when this hit nearly $500 especially if you lost half of your companies money; what better way to get it back? For the remainder of this thesis, I will be assuming that some of the short positions that exist are newly opened positions at a higher price unless someone has a counter-claim as to why that wouldn't be possible/probable.
That would mean 226% was covered on the way up and another 41.95% was reopened on the way back down. Based on the volume and price changes throughout the past two weeks this simply doesn't pass the math check.
The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze.
Again, using 41.95% this is highly likely and the most reasonable case. Some, probably the worst positions, were covered on the way up.
I think this is precisely what happened, we had some partial shorts covering but for the most part it was gamma squeezes, hype, and FOMO whereby the price started climbing so rapidly it became smarter for the shorts to just wait out the bubble than to actually cover all of their positions.
Again, we fall into a "what-if" scenario regarding shorting on the way back down.
The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes.
This scenario does not pass the math check using the 41.95% figure.
If the data is being manipulated then this becomes very interesting because if some of the worst positions are still open then that means all of these HF's losses that were reported were strictly interest and they are simply waiting this out for as long as it takes making back their losses on their newly opened short positions in t $300-$400 range.
Sadly, this puts us in the guessing range yet again. We can do the math and see it's possible this scenario exists, however, we would be comparing it against losses reported by the entities that were being squeezed.
There are way to many what-if's for me to me consider this a possibility, but I can't write it off completely.
Some combination of the above 3.
Truthfully, this isn't worth examining just yet. There would be far to many "what-if's" to address, this is something that could be address at the later dates that we will get to shortly.
Now, I've heard it a lot regarding the 02/09 data. "It's two weeks old". Well, that is always the case. The FINRA short data is always two weeks old and suggesting that we can't pull any information from it at all is asinine. Where it gets quite murky, is the data includes 01/27 information. This was a day unlike any other in this saga.
I will take this moment to address the following upcoming catalysts and when I truly think this will be done; one way or the other.
Today's data 02/09, was very important because if it showed an extremely low percentage then we know shorts have exited and did not re-enter and this is completely done. Given the data does not reflect that, we now must turn to several events that could act as catalysts for either a further squeeze or a complete shutdown.
02/15ish - In my last post, I discussed the Failure To Deliver (FTD) conundrum. I do need some help figuring out the exact expiration date. From here "The close-out requirement states that a participant of a clearing agency needs to take immediate action to close 4 out a fail to deliver position in a threshold security that has persisted for 13 consecutive settlement days by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity."
I am missing two pieces of information to answer this.

Does the 13 day countdown begin after T+2, or are those two days counted in the total number?
Are settlement days business days only?

Depending on the above information, starting at 01/29 we are looking at these possibilities:

If T+2 is not included and weekends are: 02/15
If T+2 is not included and its business days only: 02/19
If T+2 is included and weekends are: 02/13 (Saturday)
If T+2 is included and its business days: 02/17

The exact date is slightly irrelevant because I highly doubt all of these FTD's are going to deliver on the same exact day. This site, while it isn't an official channel seems to be doing a good job of tracking data. If you want to learn more about FTD's and the implications there please visit that site or review my last post which has links to follow for further reading.
02/18 - Keith Gill aka u/DeepFuckingValue will testify before congress and Robinhood CEO Vladimir will be attending. This can go several ways which can lead to an SEC trading halt on GameStop or with evidence that proves foul play occurred. Who knows? It will certainly be interesting and I don't even to speculate on the market reaction to this even because it could go a ton of different ways; it will be an important date nonetheless
02/24 - The next FINRA short interest information will be made readily available to the public. This will be far more interesting and helpful information because it won't include the insane volatility of January, but it will also highlight the newest short positions. This data will help further drive where I think this is all going to end. It's possible that shorts opened new positions at $50 thinking it was going back to $12. Let's not speculate too much here either, it's just another dataset that will bring light to the direction this is headed.
03/25 - GameStop ER. This is big too for several reasons. First, this will include the console sales cycle which historically has done well for GameStop. A typical buy the hype, sell the news event. It will be interesting to see how the market reacts leading up to this ER, maybe people won't even touch GME leading up to then due to the recent volatility, but if they do, and if there is still a lot of short interest, this too could force shorts to begin covering. Another critical part of this ER is Ryan Cohen. This will be the first time this new board addresses the public with their plans for the future and for the first time since this entire adventure began, the "dying brick and mortar" narrative will finally begin to change in the public eye. That is still the common misconception regarding GameStop, that it is a dying brick and mortar retailer where nothing has changed. This hasn't been the case for around 6 months now, but this will be the first time it is publicly address. The headlines surrounding GameStop's future plans will be very interesting to read and the markets reaction will be far more interesting.
I have been asked a lot what my PT is and when I expect the squeeze to happen, but let me be clear. Very seldom do squeezes "just happen". In fact, short squeezes are far more common than one would think, they just typically happen over months, if not years and the shorts cover on dips so you don't even notice it's happening. In order to force a squeeze, you need to hold a decent amount of shorts underwater. Soon one will crack and start closing their position, this leads to a series of shorts closing their positions skyrocketing the price until more and more shorts need to cover. This is rare.
I hope this narrative of purchasing heavily shorted companies comes to a close soon because a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money simply buying up companies because they are heavily bet against. Catalysts and massive changes need to occur like overhauling your entire business as is the case with GameStop.
Normally, shorts will close their positions one at a time, covering on dips and you don't even notice it's happening. In times where you see a price rise of seemingly no news could very well be shorts closing their positions because their research led them to realize this company is on the road to recovery.
I digress. Given the most recent data and the multiple upcoming catalysts I am still very bullish on a GME short squeeze. My post from quite some time ago illustrated the importance of catalysts regarding a short squeeze, this is still very much the case. The first run was interrupted and the second run won't happen with magic, it requires a catalyst. Another post was titled For those who do not understand the inevitable GME short squeeze, was at the time "inevitable" because math. That is no longer the case. It is no longer inevitable but it is still possible.
I want to be clear: This is not nearly as close to a sure thing as it once was and it depends on a lot of different factors. One of the largest is the people. Granted, a lot of what's happening now is in the hands of institutions but millions of retailers holding their positions to the grave certainly helps the institutional buyers have more faith in their play to continue a squeeze.
SO WHAT DO I THINK
I think shorts certainly covered some of their positions, but not all. I also firmly believe a significant amount of short positions were opened on the way back down by both HF's and individuals. Some certainly positioned high, but based on sentiment, it appears a lot of people think GME is fairly valued around $20 (which I disagree with but let's use that for the time being). That would mean shorts would have no problem opening positions at 100,70,60, even $50.
42% is still very high which means a squeeze is inevitable so long as the company continues in a positive path. However, squeezes typically aren't as abrupt as people think. They are actually quite common, in fact another position I'm heavily invested in is SPCE and they have been going through a squeeze for several weeks and will continue to squeeze so long as news continues to be positive.
How would we get an abrupt short squeeze? A massive bull run. The new shorts that entered at lower levels wouldn't be too hard to catch, however, they are probably low volume, so when they buy to close, it won't be large enough volumes for massive peaks, but a bull run very well could lead to these lower tiered shorts closing, triggering a gamma squeeze. If gamma squeezes are made week over week then shorts at the higher end would have two options:

Close early and take profits
Wait it out because they are positioned so well that interest means nothing and they don't think there is any hope of us rising to those levels.

In the first case, them closing early would be a nice short squeeze to probably several hundred dollars, but it wouldn't break $1000.
To break $1000 we would need a big bull run to catch the shorts, trigger gamma squeezes, and keep momentum until they are caught and underwater. This is highly unlikely unless there is another global sentiment.
NOTE: ALL OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS I AM MAKING ARE BASED ON THE 42% REPORTING. IF IT IS IN FACT 78% THEN THE POSSIBILITY IS TREMENDOUSLY INCREASED FOR THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN.
SO WHEN DOES IT ALL END
My though is if by the end of March these catalysts were not enough to reignite the hype and squeeze, then it will essentially be over except in the case of a few circumstances:

A VW/Porche moment occurs where a large buyer picks up a large portion of the company.
Some other currently unknown catalyst appears seemingly out of thin air
The data was in fact manipulated. Regardless of what the data says, if the shorts did in fact lie about their short int to take the fine over being squeezed, then they will be squeezed regardless.

It is quite possible, that these catalysts and moments aren't enough to force a squeeze anymore especially if the shorts have repositioned really well. I will retain the mindset that this fateful January 2021 was not a short squeeze. However, that does not mean it will ever actually happen.
SO WHAT IS YOUR PLAY HOOMAN?
Well, I am long on GME which is why I didn't mind hopping back in even at outrageous prices. I will continue averaging down and don't plan on selling for quite some time, probably several years. The reason for this is I believe in Cohen and his team to turn this into something unexpected and I imagine an eventual ROI. Once this is all said and done and I think either the shorts truly have covered or they simply got away with it (Mid March-ish), I will be posting my DD for GME as a long play regardless of the squeeze mechanics.
Thank you all for joining me on this wild journey. I hope we can discuss some of these points in the comments like adults and truly try to grasp this wild situation we are all in. There are extremes on both sides from "get over it, the squeeze happened" to a cult like mentality on the other extreme. I hope through discussion we can find the moderate approach and further understand the market mechanics at play.
Thanks for your time
WARNING: Until the squeeze business is over for good, this is a very volatile and risky play. Joining now for the hope of a potential round 2 squeeze should only be done in a speculative manner with money you are willing to lose. This is more akin to a gamble than it is investing. I think the current market price is fair given the future prospects of the company but do your own DD, I will not be releasing any until this squeeze is put to rest.
TL;DR: I am still bullish on this scenario even at 42%, if it really is 78% then I am extremely bullish. There are a plethora of upcoming catalysts that could reignite the squeeze but even if none are powerful enough, with Cohen's new direction we could expect good news for quite some time forcing shorts to exit on a more spread out timeline.
Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor. I do not wish to sway your opinion in either direction. I simply seek to examine this interesting and volatile situation via crowd sourcing. What you do with your money is entirely up to you.

Title says it all. Going to suggest a player to be drafted in either the first or second round (or third for HOU at the moment) for each team, along with a player to target in free agency, and a player to potentially trade for.
Trying to avoid overlap as best I can, but some may have similar targets. Resources used include PFF, The Draft Network, and OverTheCap. Enjoy!

Arizona Cardinals (8-8)

Trade Target: DT J.J. Watt, Houston Texans - The last deal between Arizona and Houston worked out well. Why not try again and add a serious piece to their pass rushing arsenal in Watt. An ideal interior fit for Arizona, Watt would help them push for the playoffs in his final seasons in the league.
Draft Pick: C Creed Humphrey, Oklahoma - Reuniting Kyler Murray with his old center for the Sooners would be an excellent move. The Cardinals currently have Mason Cole at center, but could easily slide him over to guard to make room for Humphrey if they wanted a significant upgrade at an underrated position.
Free Agent Signing: TE Jonnu Smith, Tennessee Titans - Arizona would be wise to look at adding Jonnu Smith into the equation on offense. One of the NFL's best after the catch at the TE position, he'd be another fun weapon to slot alongside Murray and Hopkins.

Atlanta Falcons (4-12)

Trade Target: S Tracy Walker, Detroit Lions - With a new regime coming in, Detroit is headed towards an extended rebuild, and acquiring assets for up-and-down players like Walker could be a consideration. Now, still young, Walker has plenty of potential for the Falcons, and if the price is right, could be a tremendous bargain.
Draft Pick: QB Justin Fields, Ohio State - While Matt Ryan will remain the QB of the Falcons next season, due to his contract, the Falcons should plan for the future and add a Georgia native in Fields, one of the better QB's out of college football in recent years. He'd be able to develop behind Ryan under the tutelage of new head coach Arthur Smith.
Free Agent Signing: CB Mackensie Alexander, Cincinnati Bengals - The Falcons do not have positive cap space at the moment (currently projected $30 million over the limit) so even after reworking deals and cutting some players, they'll be bargain shopping more than anything else. PFF projects Alexander to fetch a deal of about 2-years, $6 million, which could be feasible for the Falcons. He'd be a solid veteran presence across from CB A.J. Terrell.

Baltimore Ravens (11-5)

Trade Target: OLB Whitney Mercilus, Houston - I list him in "trade target" as he's technically under contract in Houston going into 2021. However, it's 99% more likely that the Texans cut him and Baltimore pursues him as a newly released free agent. Kind of cheating on my listings, but I like the idea of Mercilus in Baltimore after Houston cuts him. It'd be a coup for Houston if they could get a pick for him. Mercilus is a veteran pass rusher who could step into a role in Baltimore should OLB Matt Judon depart for greener pastures...green meaning money of course.
Draft Pick: WR Rashod Bateman, Minnesota - The idea of Bateman in Baltimore remains one of my favorite potential pairings for any player likely to be selected in the first round of the draft. Similar to Keenan Allen in my opinion, Bateman could become the go-to wide receiver the Ravens lacked last season.
Free Agent Signing: G Jon Feliciano, Buffalo Bills - The Ravens need to bolster the middle of their offensive line, and a tough veteran like Feliciano could be ideal target for the Ravens. With a big contract committed to LT Ronnie Staley, a cheaper veteran like Feliciano could match price tag with talent. Good value for the Ravens.

Buffalo Bills (13-3)

Trade Target: DT Malcom Brown, New Orleans Saints - The Saints are in cap space purgatory, and thus could be looking to offload some decent players like Brown simply to get back under the cap. He's a solid starting DT who could be available for cheap in the Saints push to real in their financial situation. A strong fit next to Ed Oliver on the inside.
Draft Pick: LB Chazz Surratt, North Carolina - Given their limited cap space, the Bills may have to decide between re-signing OT Daryl Williams and LB Matt Milano. If so, a replacement like Surratt could be a smart move for Sean McDermott and co. as Surratt is a quick backer who excels in space and has shown plenty of promise in coverage.
Free Agent Signing: DE Romeo Okwara, Detroit Lions - The Bills aren't loaded with cap space (barely above 0 if the cap stays down at $175 million), but I'd imagine they'll find some ways to free some cap up. If they do, they may want to consider Okwara, a rising pass-rusher, as a replacement for some of their own departing edge rushers. He tallied 10 sacks this season after hitting 7.5 sacks in 2018 in Detroit. While not elite, Okwara's likely a solid value pass-rusher for a contender like the Bills.

Carolina Panthers (5-11)

Trade Target: DT Akiem Hicks, Chicago Bears - The Panthers just drafted DT Derrick Brown, but pairing him and Hicks together could become a dominant duo in the middle of that defense. And with DT Kawann Short a likely cut candidate, Hicks could be an instant upgrade for Carolina.
Draft Pick: LB Micah Parsons, Penn State - Forget the QB position, if the Panthers have the opportunity to land Parsons at 8th overall, they should pull the trigger. He'd be an immediate boost of speed, instincts and athleticism into their linebacker corps, a strong replacement for Luke Kuechly.
Free Agent Signing: TE Gerald Everett, Los Angeles Rams - More of a move tight end than a traditional in-line blocker, Everett could be an exceptional value signing for someone, as he's not likely to command as much money as Hunter Henry or Jonnu Smith, but is a very good player himself.

Chicago Bears (8-8)

Trade Target: QB Jimmy Garoppolo, San Francisco 49ers - Unless the Bears are set to bring back Mitch Trubisky, who played a bit better to end the season but still not strong enough, the Bears should look at the veteran QB market. While Garoppolo has had some injury issues, he's a notable upgrade over Trubisky and could give them a steady veteran presence for a couple of more years.
Draft Pick: OT Christian Darrisaw, Virginia Tech - There's growing buzz that Rashawn Slater could join Penei Sewell in the top-10, leaving him just out of the Bears' grasp. But Darrisaw is quite the consolation prize as he's a first-round caliber offensive tackle himself who could fill a big need for the offense in the Windy City.
Free Agent Signing: WR Sammy Watkins, Kansas City Chiefs - Watkins and Bears head coach Matt Nagy did not cross paths in Kansas City, but a recommendation from Andy Reid could push the two together. The Bears are another team facing some cap complications, and thus may need a cheaper replacement for Allen Robinson on the outside. If so, Watkins has been a strong complimentary receiver who could pair well with rising youngster Darnell Mooney.

Cincinnati Bengals (4-11-1)

Trade Target: G Joe Dahl, Detroit Lions - Finding protection and weapons for QB Joe Burrow is the primary goal for Cincinnati this offseason before they enter the coaching carousel in 2022. Dahl is a strong pass protector who has grown into a quality starter. However, with large contracts for C Frank Ragnow coming up, along with big deals in place for Decker and Vaitai, Detroit may need to send Dahl out for picks.
Draft Pick: OT Penei Sewell, Oregon - There is buzz that Northwestern's Rashawn Slater may be viewed as OT1, and I get the hype, however, I'm sticking with Sewell for now. The Bengals should draft Sewell and get him ready to go as their franchise left tackle in 2021.
Free Agent Signing: CB Troy Hill, Los Angeles Rams - The Bengals have a healthy chunk of cap space, and should use of that to bring back CB William Jackson III. However, they should not stop there, they should also make a push for a quality veteran cornerback like Hill to bolster their defense in the meantime.

Cleveland Browns (11-5)

Trade Target: LB Jaylon Smith, Dallas Cowboys - After looking like an elite linebacker from 2017-2019, Smith had a rough year under now fired defensive coordinator Mike Nolan. A fresh start in Cleveland could be ideal for both teams, as Smith is still young enough, 26 years, to be a strong piece to their defense for years to come.
Draft Pick: DT Daviyon Nixon, Iowa - The Browns are in a strong position at 26th overall to sit and see who the top defensive lineman on the board is. If they're lucky enough for it to be a high potential defensive tackle like Nixon, it'd be an ideal situation to bring him in the replace Ogunjobi. A defensive end like Jayson Oweh or Jaelan Phillips could also work here.
Free Agent Signing: S Marcus Williams, New Orleans Saints - The Browns could use a big upgrade on the back end, and Williams, at only 24 years old, would be a premium add for a team who finally broke through the playoffs. PFF projects Williams to command a deal around 4-years $57 million, and the Browns would likely have the money to make that happen, sitting tenth in cap space this offseason.

Dallas Cowboys (6-10)

Trade Target: CB Mike Hughes, Minnesota Vikings - Hughes was a first-round pick for the Vikings in 2018, but has not lived up to the billing so far. Dallas is in need of several new faces on its defensive backfield, and perhaps a new situation could be best for Hughes to turn his NFL career around. For Dallas, a cheap flier on defense.
Draft Pick: CB Patrick Surtain II, Alabama - The Cowboys defense is a mess at many levels, and so picking a premium defensive player like Surtain would be a wise for Dallas to get things straightened out. He's consistently been pegged as the top corner of this draft cycle and makes a lot of sense in Dallas.
Free Agent Signing: DT Dalvin Tomlinson, New York Giants - The Cowboys ranked 31st in total rushing yards surrendered in 2020, meaning they'll need to make it a priority to find a run-stuffer like Dalvin Tomlinson to get their defense back on track. While most teams are geared towards stopping the pass, you simply cannot be as bad in run stopping as Dallas was and expect to be competitive.

Denver Broncos (5-11)

Trade Target: QB Marcus Mariota, Las Vegas Raiders - An inter-divisional trade for a QB seems unlikely, but it's something for both sides to consider. The Broncos need to find a veteran QB to bring in to push QB Drew Lock, who has shown flashes in his first two years but has so far been too inconsistent to commit to long-term.
Draft Pick: EDGE Joe Tryon, Washington - More likely a second-round selection here, the Broncos should consider finding a player to develop into Von Miller's replacement, given all the complications with their star pass-rusher recently. Tryon has a high motor and excellent athleticism to develop across from Bradley Chubb.
Free Agent Signing: CB Quinton Dunbar, Seattle Seahawks - Dunbar was an excellent player for Washington previously, but did not meet expectations after getting moved to the Seahawks. Should he walk in free agency, perhaps putting him under a solid defensive coach like Vic Fangio could help him get back into the strong form that made him a coveted player in 2019.

Detroit Lions (5-11)

Trade Target: A Big Haul for Matt Stafford - We suggest one later on, but Detroit's in a full-on rebuild with Stafford wanting out. Peter King recently reported that at least five teams would be willing to offer their first-rounder for Stafford. Detroit should turn it into a bidding war and land as many draft picks as they can to bolster their rebuilding efforts.
Draft Pick: QB Trey Lance, North Dakota State - The Lions are moving on from QB Matthew Stafford after he understandably requested out. With Detroit picking at 7th, there's a very good chance that Trevor Lawrence, Justin Fields, and Zach Wilson are all off the board. Thus, unless Detroit makes a bold move up the board, chances are that they go with Lance, who has the potential to be available with their pick. He has plenty of upside to develop into a starting QB behind a veteran QB, say Tyrod Taylor, reuniting with new Lions offensive coordinator Anthony Lynn?
Free Agent Signing: LB Matt Milano, Buffalo Bills - If we were ranking worst position groups in the league, Detroit's LB corps is in strong contention. An outdated group of lethargic old-school thumpers, almost none of Detroit's LB's are capable of playing modern football at a high level. Detroit should invest some cash into someone who is, such as the Bills LB Matt Milano, an excellent backer with range and some ability in coverage.

Green Bay Packers

Trade Target: WR Michael Gallup, Dallas Cowboys - The Packers wide receivers performed quite well after all the criticism Green Bay received after not bringing in anyone for QB Aaron Rodgers. However, good is the enemy of great, and pairing Gallup with Davante Adams would give Green Bay an elite duo in terms of pass catchers.
Draft Pick: LB Nick Bolton, Missouri - If Jeremiah Owusu-Koramoah was here as well, I think he could be another strong option, but Bolton is an excellent linebacker who can fill gaps inside and fly from sideline-to-sideline.
Free Agent Signing: CB Gareon Conley, Houston Texans - Like the Falcons listed earlier, the Packers don't have positive cap space at the moment, and thus any free agent additions will likely be bargain bin deals. I like the example that PFF lists in their free agency preview, suggesting Conley could replicate Ronald Darby's return, taking a year deal with the aims of getting things turned around and landing a larger deal after that. An opportunity in Green Bay seems like a good start.

Houston Texans (4-12)

Trade Target: Every Pick they can get from the Jets - Even hiring a veteran coach like Culley to run the show and attempt to repair the relationship with Watson, it seems unlikely to me that Houston holds on, given the issues between Watson and owner Cal McNair. Thus, if forced to deal him, the Texans should aim to land at least three first rounders from a team like the Jets, who could see Watson as a better player than any of the QB's available behind Trevor Lawrence.
Draft Pick: QB Zach Wilson, BYU - This obviously assumes a trade with the Jets sends #2 overall to Houston. If so, Wilson looks like the next best bet behind Lawrence in my opinion. He, along with the boatload of additional assets that would come along in this trade, should be a solid foundation for Culley and co.'s rebuild.
Free Agent Signing: S Malik Hooker, Indianapolis Colts - The Texans will start their rebuild without any cap space, meaning that taking chances on younger guys like Hooker, 24 years old, to potentially find useful pieces is key. If they can land Hooker to play safety for them on a cheap 1-2 year deal, that'd be ideal for Houston.

Indianapolis Colts (11-5)

Trade Target: QB Matthew Stafford, Detroit Lions - Easy one here. If the Colts had Stafford in 2020 they probably would have replaced the Bills in the AFC Championship Game. Stafford is only 32 years, meaning he still has a strong 4-5 years left to help the Colts' well-rounded roster make a championship push. Surrendering a first round pick and potentially a 2022 3rd (if there competition from others) is a gamble I'd definitely make if I were Chris Ballard.
Draft Pick: DE Patrick Jones II, Pittsburgh - Assuming the Colts use their first on the aforementioned Stafford deal, then finding a balanced edge rusher like Jones would be a great move for Indy. With players like Denico Autry and Justin Houston headed to free agency (and getting old), the Colts would get a terror on the edge with a tremendous motor and tools to develop.
Free Agent Signing: WR Allen Robinson, Chicago Bears - The Colts have a large amount of cap space, second in the league according to OTC's projections. Given that they will need to conserve some of that war chest for internal extensions, they would be wise to replace T.Y. Hilton with a more dominant receiver like Allen Robinson. An offseason adding Matt Stafford and Robinson together should make Frank Reich and Marcus Brady very excited for 2021.

Jacksonville Jaguars (1-15)

Trade Target: WR Odell Beckham Jr., Cleveland Browns - If the Browns are preparing to move on from Beckham Jr., then perhaps sending him down to Jacksonville to pair up with Urban Meyer could help get him playing elite football again. After posting 1,000 yard season in 3 of the previous 4 seasons, an injury once again cut his year short.
Draft Pick: OT Dillon Radunz, North Dakota State - Not at #1 overall obviously. We all know that will go to QB Trevor Lawrence. However, with the Rams 1st round selection (acquired via the Jalen Ramsey trade), the Jaguars should look to use it on an upgrade to their offensive line in the form of Radunz.
Free Agent Signing: OLB Shaquil Barrett, Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Provided new defensive coordinator Joe Cullen brings a Ravens style 3-4 defense with him, then adding a premier OLB like Barrett while K'Lavon Chaisson develops would be a great move for Jacksonville. With the NFL's lead in cap space, Jacksonville could afford Barrett along with some other instant contributors.

Kansas City Chiefs (14-2)

Trade Target: WR Anthony Miller, Chicago Bears - The Chiefs could easily lose WR Sammy Watkins to free agency, leaving an opening for another wideout to join the rotation. Miller has been fairly productive in Chicago, and could be a solid option to join Tyreek Hill and Travis Kelce in Andy Reid's passing attack.
Draft Pick: G Alijah Vera-Tucker, USC - Vera-Tucker gets mocked to the Chiefs a lot, and it makes perfect sense why. A premier offensive line talent, he has some versatility after playing tackle for the Trojans. While I think his best fit is inside, he'd be an ideal player for Kansas City to add to bolster their protection after investing so much in QB Patrick Mahomes.
Free Agent Signing: C Ted Karras, Miami Dolphins - The Chiefs will also be bargain bin hunting, as they're currently over the cap by $18 million. Thus, a starting caliber center like Ted Karras could prove useful for the defending Super Bowl champs (at this point). Karras signed with the Dolphins for only $3 million last season, and a similar deal with KC could be an absolute bargain when all is said and done.

Las Vegas Raiders (8-8)

Trade Target: DT Akiem Hicks, Chicago Bears - I mentioned Hicks for the Panthers as well, but he'd be a great add for either team, perhaps even more so for the Raiders, who could easily see DT Johnathan Hankins depart in free agency. A disruptive player in the middle, he'd be a nice add in Las Vegas.
Draft Pick: EDGE Azeez Ojulari, Georgia - After shockingly selecting DE Clelin Ferrell at fourth overall in 2019, the Raiders have still been searching for a game changer at DE to go alongside the productive efforts of Maxx Crosby. Ojulari profiles as a high potential pass rusher to scratch that itch for Jon Gruden and co.
Free Agent Signing: S Anthony Harris, Minnesota Vikings - The Raiders may have to get creative to free up the cap space to land Harris, as they're currently over. But if they can do it, he'd be an ideal player to add to the Vegas' defense, now led by defensive coordinator Ken Whisen...uh...Gus Bradley. Harris is an elite free safety who would pair well with Jonathan Abram.

Los Angeles Chargers (7-9)

Trade Target: DT Danny Shelton, Detroit Lions - Shelton struggled in Detroit, but frankly, everyone on Patricia's defense did. Before that, Shelton posted strong results as a 3-4 interior gap-plugger, doing a quality job for both the Browns and Patriots before him. With Linval Joseph on the decline, adding a younger replacement for cheap could be in store.
Draft Pick: G Wyatt Davis, Ohio State - LA needs a couple of new starters on its offensive line, and if the tackles fly off the board before they can get one at 13th overall, then perhaps a top notch guard could also suffice. Davis has been a consistent player for the Buckeyes and projects as an instant impact lineman for someone at the next level.
Free Agent Signing: OT Alejandro Villanueva, Pittsburgh Steelers - A sturdy, veteran left tackle should be a big priority for the Chargers, as the imperative to protect QB Justin Herbert is high. After a breakout season for Herbert, he gives the franchise a ton of optimism under new head coach Brandon Staley. Keeping him upright is something Villanueva would do well at.

Los Angeles Rams (10-6)

Trade Target: QB Gardner Minshew, Jacksonville Jaguars - The Rams are in a pickle with QB Jared Goff. He has not been a strong point for the team recently, but his contract is a bit too heavy to move right now. Thus, a cheaper way to acquire some genuine competition for Goff could be to trade for the affordable Minshew, a solid starter in his own right. Jacksonville will be bringing in Trevor Lawrence anyways to replace him, so perhaps acquiring a pick or so to send him out could be a wise move.
Draft Pick: EDGE Quincy Roche, Miami - Provided that new defensive coordinator Raheem Morris isn't changing the scheme outright, Roche would be an excellent fit at 3-4 OLB in LAR. He's a dynamic pass rusher with excellent physical traits. If he falls to the Rams in the second-round they shouldn't think twice about selecting him.
Free Agent Signing: LB Jarrad Davis, Detroit Lions - The Rams are another team already over the cap, so not a lot to spend on. However, they could use some help at inside linebacker, and Davis projects to be a relatively cheap piece to take a gamble on. Physically impressive, he's struggled with the mental side of the game. If Morris can get him sorted out, it could be excellent value.

Miami Dolphins (10-6)

Trade Target: WR Julio Jones, Atlanta Falcons - The Dolphins will likely have the opportunity to draft a premier wide receiver in the first round, but could also use some of their stockpile to add an established star like Jones. Giving Tua as many options as you can is a wise move.
Draft Pick: RB Najee Harris, Alabama - Reuniting Harris and Tua in a backfield would fill a big need for the Dolphins. Whether taking him with their second selection in the first round or hoping he drops to the second, Miami should get serious about finding a talented running back,
Free Agent Signing: G Joe Thuney, New England Patriots - The Dolphins still have a decent amount of cap space (8th in the league) and could easily use some of that to target an upgrade to the interior of their offensive line by adding Thuney. Thuney crossed paths with Dolphins head coach Brian Flores in New England, and a reunion down south could be profitable for both parties.

Minnesota Vikings (7-9)

Trade Target: DT Tyquan Lewis, Indianapolis Colts - Lewis may not be on the trade block, but the Colts have both defensive tackles locked up ahead of him (Buckner, Grover Stewart). Perhaps they'd consider moving a young, promising 3-technique if Minnesota put together a quality offer for him. He'd instantly fill a need for the Vikings.
Draft Pick: EDGE Gregory Rousseau, Miami - With the failed Yannick Ngakoue tenure, the Vikings still need to find a premium pass rusher. Rousseau sat out 2020, but was dominant the year before and projects as a highly athletic piece for Zimmer to develop.
Free Agent Signing: OT Matt Feiler, Pittsburgh Steelers - Feiler offers a lot of versatility, which works great for Minnesota, as they could insert Feiler as a starting tackle, or slide G Ezra Cleveland into the LT position and put Feiler in at guard. Either way, a relatively affordable upgrade on the OL.

New England Patriots (7-9)

Trade Target: TE Zach Ertz, Philadelphia Eagles - The Eagles are another team finding themselves in a less-than-ideal cap situation, and thus, will likely explore moving a top player like Ertz. While the Patriots have drafted a handful of decent role players at TE, they've lacked a player of Ertz's caliber. He'd be a nice upgrade to help whomever the Patriots land at QB.
Draft Pick: WR Jaylen Waddle, Alabama - It seems unlikely that Devonta Smith or Ja'Marr Chase slip to New England, but I'd imagine they'd be perfectly content with a potential stud like Waddle to bolster their mediocre group of pass catchers. He's a very smooth player with a lot of potential.
Free Agent Signing: QB Andy Dalton, Dallas Cowboys - Dalton got off to a rough start with Dallas in relief of QB Dak Prescott, scoring a total of 13 points in 2 games while throwing 1 touchdown to 3 interceptions. However, he was admirable after that, throwing 13 touchdowns to 5 interceptions while posting a 4-3 record over that stretch. Dalton could be an upgrade over Cam Newton for New England while they hunt for a new franchise QB to replace Tom Brady.

New Orleans Saints (12-4)

Trade Target: Draft Picks for Kwon Alexander, Nick Easton, or Latavius Murray - The Saints game isn't necessarily who they should bring in, but if they can get picks for some players with bloated contracts that they may need to cut. If they can score some late-round picks to move these guys (or others) elsewhere, they need to pull the trigger.
Draft Pick: WR Kadarius Toney, Florida - While it seems like the hype train on Toney has left the station, it'd be incredible if he slipped to the Saints at 28th overall in this draft. An explosive player, he'd be an ideal partner for WR Michael Thomas, giving Taysom Hill or maybe Jameis(?) some excellent weapons.
Free Agent Signing: TE Jacob Hollister, Seattle Seahawks - The Saints, as mentioned, are in cap purgatory. Their signings will be quite minimum once they make the trades, cuts, and restructures required to get them back under the cap. However, one cheaper option could be a solid TE like Hollister, as TE Jared Cook is set to depart. Putting up 25 catches including 3 touchdowns at a price tag a shade over $3 million could be in New Orleans price range.

New York Giants (6-10)

Trade Target: G Gabe Jackson, Las Vegas Raiders - Jackson has been rumored to be available for a little while now. Not yet 30 years old, he's a steady veteran option on the interior of any offensive line and would fit quite well with the Giants.
Draft Pick: WR Devonta Smith, Alabama - If the Dolphins don't take Smith, the Giants certainly should. Ensuring that QB Daniel Jones has the weapons he needs to grow into the franchise QB role is pertinent. Smith is a stud pass catcher and would be an excellent pick if he were on the board at 10th overall.
Free Agent Signing: EDGE Matt Judon, Baltimore Ravens - The Ravens have let a handful of pass rushers walk, and if they do so with Judon this year, the Giants should go get him. While Yannick could also be a Ravens OLB on the market, Judon fits Joe Judge's style a little bit more than Yannick does, and could be available for cheaper, which is important for another cap squeezed team like the Giants.

New York Jets (2-14)

Trade Target: QB Deshaun Watson, Houston Texans - As I do think Justin Fields or Zach Wilson can be good franchise QB's, Watson already is an exceptional one. The Jets should put together a package of picks to go land the beleaguered QB and unite him with Robert Saleh, whom he listed as one of the guys he originally wanted Houston to interview.
Draft Pick: WR Amon-Ra St. Brown, USC - Assuming the Jets send both first-round selections to the Texans in the hypothetical Watson trade, the Jets would still have a premium pick to start off the second-round, one they should use to add a top tier WR like St. Brown who could be a star quickly.
Free Agent Signing: CB William Jackson III, Cincinnati Bengals - If the Bengals can't lock Jackson up to an extension before free agency, the Jets should throw some cash at him to be a foundational piece of Saleh's defense in the Big Apple.

Philadelphia Eagles (4-11-1)

Trade Target: Draft Picks for Zach Ertz, DeSean Jackson, and Alshon Jeffery - Like the Saints, the Eagles probably should focus on offloading bloated contracts rather than bringing anyone in. The cheap rookie contracts that draft picks provide will be needed to steer themselves out of cap purgatory.
Draft Pick: WR Ja'Marr Chase, LSU - The Eagles and Chase are an ideal fit, and new head coach Nick Sirianni sure could use the big play ability that Chase provides. Whichever QB ends up getting the start, they'll be happy to have a guy like Chase to throw to.
Free Agent Signing: CB Bashaud Breeland, Kansas City Chiefs - The Eagles have a horrific cap situation themselves, and thus, a lower-end veteran like Breeland can give them a solid starter at an affordable price as the Eagles try and sort out their defense.

Pittsburgh Steelers (12-4)

Trade Target: QB Sam Darnold, New York Jets - The Steelers may have brought in Dwayne Haskins, but frankly I have little faith there. Instead, they should call up the Jets to figure out what Darnold will cost them. One season behind Roethlisberger in his final go could be a great change of pace for Darnold before taking over.
Draft Pick: RB Travis Etienne, Clemson - Everyone is too cool for elite running backs in the wannabe scouting world. But Etienne is a stud, and the Steelers need a big upgrade at running back. If they don't like their options for QB late into the first, they should give serious weight to taking Etienne and landing an elite player rather than reach for a lesser player elsewhere.
Free Agent Signing: G Elijah Wilkinson, Denver Broncos - Wilkinson had a very rough 2019 season, but has been a good deal better in 2020. He's still on the younger end, not even 26 years old, and could be an affordable gamble for Pittsburgh, who also needs to find their way back under the cap ($35 million over).

San Francisco 49ers (6-10)

Trade Target: QB Matthew Stafford, Detroit Lions - If the Colts don't land Stafford, the 49ers absolutely should. Pairing Stafford and Kyle Shanahan would be fun to watch, and he'd be a much most consistent player for the 49ers than the oft-injured Jimmy G. It's a big move, but one Shanahan may want to consider to make another championship run.
Draft Pick: CB Caleb Farley, Virginia Tech - If the 49ers don't move for Stafford and keep their first-round selection, they should target a top tier corner like Farley as they have a handful of corners (Sherman, Witherspoon, Williams) set to hit the open market.
Free Agent Signing: DT Shelby Harris, Denver Broncos - The 49ers top priority should be retaining OT Trent Williams, but after that, adding a veteran pass rusher on the interior could be a good move. Harris has been a consistent player for Denver, but has yet to be rewarded with a big opportunity, something he could get here alongside Nick Bosa and Arik Armstead.

Seattle Seahawks (12-4)

Trade Target: DT Jonathan Allen, Washington Football Team - I'm not sure the Football Team would move him, but he is on the final year of his deal, and Washington's going to have weigh future deals for DE's Montez Sweat and Chase Young into the equation. If they aren't willing to pony up for three studs on the defensive line, they may look to add some picks in exchange for Allen.
Draft Pick: CB Greg Newsome II, Northwestern - A late riser up the board after a stellar junior year in Evanston. Newsome has ideal size (6'1, 190 lbs) for Seattle and could help fill a gap if they have to choose between Shaquill Griffin and Quinton Dunbar.
Free Agent Signing: DE Carl Lawson, Cincinnati Bengals - A really good fit here, as the Seahawks very much need some pass-rushing help. Lawson has been an excellent player for the Bengals and could find the chance to compete in the playoffs if he heads west for Seattle.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers (11-5)

Trade Target: QB Sam Darnold, New York Jets - The Bucs are another team that should explore the asking price for Darnold. While Brady is still winning his battle against time, it seems unrealistic to expect it to continue for too much longer. The Bucs could potentially land his heir apparent in Darnold.
Draft Pick: Christian Barmore, Alabama - Between Barmore and Daviyon Nixon, I think both have a case to make as DT1 in this class, but Barmore projects as a bit better fit to Todd Bowles' 3-4 defense than Nixon does. The Bucs add an impact defensive lineman to pair on the inside with Vita Vea, giving them flexibility in replacing Ndamukong Suh.
Free Agent Signing: OLB Tyus Bowser, Baltimore Ravens - The Bucs have a good chunk of cap space available, but will need to prioritize some re-signings like LB Lavonte David, OLB Shaq Barrett, and TE Rob Gronkowski. Thus, they may not have a lot of cash to throw out there after bringing back some of their own. Bowser is a good value to add as a rotational pass rusher, scoring some decent grades from PFF as a backup for Matt Judon and Yannick in Baltimore. An expanded role in Tampa could pay off for both sides.

Tennessee Titans (11-5)

Trade Target: OLB Jacob Martin, Houston Texans - As sad as it is, Martin's 3 sacks in 2020 would have led the team for Tennessee. In a passing era, you need to get after the QB better than the Texans are doing. While team's are hesitant to trade within the division, the Texans should be more focused on acquiring picks to rebuild, which they could get by moving a decent rotational pass-rusher.
Draft Pick: OLB Joseph Ossai, Texas - Really the Titans should be focused on landing a high potential pass-rusher, and Ossai figures to be a hot name in that range. He's a springy pass rusher who can inject some life into one of the league's worst team's at getting to the QB.
Free Agent Signing: WR T.Y. Hilton, Indianapolis Colts - After a strong season in 2020, WR Corey Davis seems a bit unlikely to return, as he'll likely fetch more on the market than the Titans can afford to pay him. Thus, they should consider adding a veteran replacement to pair with budding star A.J. Brown at wide receiver.

Washington Football Team (7-9)

Trade Target: QB Deshaun Watson, Houston Texans - Another team I think should really make a push for Watson. It'll cost them at least a 2021 and 2022 first-round pick, along with probably another second and DT Jonathan Allen or some other player. It could definitely cost more than that! But Watson would solidify Washington as the top team in the NFC East for the next few years. With QB and DE locked in with Watson, Sweat, and Young, this could be a potential dynasty in the division.
Draft Pick: OT Teven Jenkins, Oklahoma State - A potential second-round target, Washington should look to find a developmental tackle to eventually slot into their lineup. Morgan Moses and Cornelius Lucas were a solid pairing last year, but both are about to turn 30 years old, and Jenkins has a lot of potential. A year to develop before taking a spot in the starting lineup would ideal for everyone involved.
Free Agent Signing: WR Kenny Golladay, Detroit Lions - Washington managed to build a passing attack out of Terry McLaurin and a handful of role players at RB and TE. While it worked in 2020, it does not seem very sustainable, as Washington should use its cap space to bring in a premier WR to pair with Terry McLaurin. Pairing up McLaurin's speed with Golladay's ability to go win contested balls is an ideal complementary pairing.

Also on my blog with better formatting, cute footnotes and inlined images.
Note that not much here is new material, mostly rehashing existing points.

Disclaimer

This article started out as research for my betting against Bitcoin on the stock market. This isn't financial advice. As a matter of fact, I encourage all readers you to not buy or short crypto, through any market or derivative. Use your money for productive uses.
Here's a TL;DR:

The current parabolic price increase in Bitcoin is a bubble that has started popping.
A stablecoin called Tether is either one of the largest frauds or money laundering operation in history, and is providing most of the liquidity in the cryptocurrency ecosystem.
A BTC bubble pop, incoming regulation on stablecoins or the current NYAG investigation into tether will expose tether's insolvency to the crypto market. This is bigger than it sounds.
(Speculative, but one can hope) Current prices to mine BTC could end up higher than BTC market price, exposing BTC to a 51% attack.

A Recap: Bitcoin is useless and should go away

Bitcoin serves no purpose. Let's just rehash that by quickly debunking the major claimed uses over time as seen here

Proof of concept: No argument here, but now that the market cap of cryptocurrencies is closing in on a $700B, this seems moot.
Cheap Payment Network: Nonsense, since BTC transactions are currently >$10 and this worsens the more people use it.
Anonymous Darknet Currency: I'd have said "no argument here", but apparently it's surprisingly easy to trace BTC nowadays. However, crypto ecosystem as a whole seems to do a decent job at laundering money as we'll see later.
Reserve Currency for Crypto: Since a reserve currency should be useful as a means of exchange, and I wrote several thousand words on how BTC is not that, my position is pretty clear. Also, the fact that a cryptocurrency indexed to the US dollar has trounced BTC as the main means of exchange in the crypto ecosystem speaks for itself.
Programmable Shared Database: You know what's programmable, shared and a database? The database we use at work. Just learn to implement access control lists on your SQL server.
Uncorrelated Financial Asset: Given BTC crashed just like the rest of the market when COVID showed up, this doesn't hold up

The stupidest version of the "uncorrelated asset" argument I hear is "Bitcoin is a great hedge for inflation!"
You know what's a good "hedge for inflation"? Literally anything. The definition of inflation is "the price of money". If the price of money goes down (inflation) then everything else has a positive return by comparison.
People who say "bitcoin is a good hedge for inflation" shouldn't be trusted to manage their own money, let alone give financial advice to anyone.

Censorship Resistant e-Gold: This is a roundabout way of saying "BTC is a store of value"! Which, again, can only be said by people who've never read the definition of "store of value" in a textbook.

I already went into detail into this, but BTC is a terrible store of value because it's volatile. Assets that can lose 20% of value overnight don't "store value". BTC is a "vehicle for speculation".
The only way price is sustained for BTC is that you can find some other idiot to sell it to. Just as a reminder, 50% of Gold is used for things that aren't speculation, like Jewelry, so you'll never have to worry finding a seller there.
Here are some real uses for bitcoin:

Gambling is fun. You buy BTC, the price might go up! Or down! This is exciting.
Hackers, money launderers and other criminals certainly find cryptocurrencies useful.

Reminder: BTC is an ecological scourge
The current cost to mine a BTC is around $8000 in electricity. This electricity mostly comes from subsidized coal in China.
And given the current amount of BTC generated each day, we're using about equivalent to the electricity from all of Belgium, largely in coal, to keep this going.
I don't mind wasting time on intellectual curiosities, but destroying our planet for glorified gambling is not something I'm happy about. I want cryptocurrencies to go away entirely on this basis, philosophically.

Current BTC prices are a bubble

Before we go into tether, reminder that at the time of writing, the plot of BTC price against the S&P500 looks like this
BTC price has increased by ~800% since March. Still, no one uses it for anything useful since the last bubble in 2017, or the other one before that in 2013. This is another bubble however you put it.
BTC is not "new technology"
10 years the internet became popular, Google and Amazon already existed. We're 8 years after the popular emergence of deep learning and it has already revolutionized machine translation, computer vision and natural language processing in general.
You could argue that deep learning and the internet existed before their emergence, but so did cryptocurrencies. Look up b-money and hashcash for instance.
Bitcoin has existed since 2008 and emerged in popularity around the same time as deep learning did, yet we're still to find actual uses for it except speculation and criminal uses. It's a solution waiting for a problem.
Institutional investors are also idiots
The narrative this time is that "institutional investors" are buying into BTC. This doesn't mean it's not a bubble.
Many of the institutions were buying through Grayscale Bitcoin Trust. Rather, many of them were chasing the premium over net asset value that hovered around 20%. Basically, lock money in GBTC for 6 months, cash out and collect the premium as profit. Of course, this little Ponzi couldn't last forever and the premium seems to be evaporating now.
Similarly, totally-not-a-bitcoin-ETF-wearing-a-software-company-skinsuit Microstrategy (MSTR) trades at a massive premium over fundamentals.
There will always be traders chasing bonuses from numbers going up, regardless what is making the number going up. The same "institutional investors" were buying obviously terrible CDOs in the run-up to 2008.

Tether is lunacy

Tether is a cryptocurrency whose exchange rate is supposed to be pegged to the US Dollar. Initially this was done by having 1-to-1 US Dollar reserves for each tether issued. Then they got scammed by their money launderer, losing some $800M, which made them insolvent.
Anyway, now tether maintains their reserves are whatever they want them to be and they haven't gotten audited since 2017.
You know, normal stuff.
There's a problem to backing your USD-pegged security with something that isn't US Dollars. Namely, if the price of the thing you're backing your US Dollars against goes down, you're now insolvent. If you were backing $10B in tether with $10B of bitcoin, then the bitcoin drops by half, you're insolvent by $5B.
And then this spotlessly clean company they somehow added $20B to their balance sheet in the second half of 2020
Reminder: one side of that balance sheet is currently floating around the cryptocurrency ecosystem. Cryptocurrency traders own it as an asset and sell it to others. The other half of the balance sheet is whatever tether wants.
There are only two possibilities that explain tether's growth:

Massive unbacked issuances, because they're afraid their scam has run its course.
Money laundering. Lots of it.

It could also be a happy mix of both.
One particularly interesting date is 30/8/2020, where tether added $3B to its balance sheet overnight. This is interesting because it predates the subsequent movement in bitcoin price and large movements in other cryptocurrencies.
The story from tether and tether's bank's CEO is that this money largely comes from foreign nationals through an OTC desk which implies the transaction goes as following:

A foreign national sends money in a foreign currency to an OTC desk. This is exactly as clean as you'd think -- often raw cash transactions in the millions.
That OTC desk converts the money to USD and sends it to tether's correspondent US bank. The OTC desk gives tether to the foreign national.
Wait tether has a correspondent US bank?

Oh, I forgot to mention, no bank wants tether as a customer because they obviously break KYC/AML compliance. So tether first ~~bought~~ invested in a bank called Noble which then lost its relationship with Wells-Fargo when they realized tether were lying to them about AML. Poor tether lost its legal access to USD.
Tether has been banking in the Bahamas with a bank called Deltec since. First they had a money launderer called Crypto Capital Corp to send funds to customers, who stole the $800M from them and subsequently went to jail.
But worry not! Tether found a way to get banked in USD afterwards. Curious coincidence, an executive at Deltec was randomly blogging about buying small US community banks in 2018. You know, that thing money launderers do.
So tether's story is that in 2020, they took in roughly twenty billion USD of shady foreign money into the small community US bank their deltec bankers bought. These transactions are necessarily breaking KYC/AML. The foreign parties to those transactions wouldn't take such a rickety route to convert billions into cryptocurrencies if they weren't laughed out of the room in serious banks.
But of course, Deltec will say it did KYC on tether. Really solid KYC, clearly, since they're the last bank on earth taking tether's business. Tether says they do KYC on their customers (the large OTC desks). And I'm sure the OTC desks would be shocked, shocked if the cash money they get in Russia and China turns out to be dirty. So everyone can pass the buck of responsibility down the road and claim "We do KYC on our customers".
Sure you do, tether. If you did such great KYC, you wouldn't have such problems finding banking relationships. I mean when even HSBC is not doing business with you you're apparently more obviously moving criminal money than fucking drug cartels.
And, according to tether's people, this money is what's backing tether's reserves. Money that will get frozen the instant a prosecutor even looks at it.
Reminder: the above is the charitable, positive case for tether.
The less charitable case is that they took crayons and added zeros to their balance sheet, and that there's a couple billions waiting to burn a hole in the crypto ecosystem.
Anyway, the $25B garbage fire that is tether will make a great book/netflix series at some point and their hilariously stupid CTO going on podcasts while flinching on questions about how BTC ended up on their balance sheet will be a fun part of it.
But I'm not here to write a book, I'm here to make money by shorting all of this. For my purposes, even in the positive case tether is a ticking time bomb waiting to burn a hole in the crypto ecosystem, because...

KYC and AML are coming for cryptocurrencies

If you listen to "crypto news", all incoming crypto regulation is just great, because that means crypto is becoming legit. However, companies investing in crypto are very angry about them.
This is because crypto transactions break the FinCEN travel rule, where KYC information should "travel" along transactions, to prevent money laundering obfuscation schemes.
Of course, according to the crypto industry this is "stifling innovation". A more reasonable take is that by being leaving the crypto industry outside normal financial regulations, we're enabling a "race to the bottom". As we saw with shadow banks in the 2000-2007 era this leads to "creative banking". I don't want my bankers to be creative, I want them to be solvent.

Tether's effect on the crypto ecosystem

When tether implodes, it's taking most of the crypto industry along for a fun ride. Tether can implode in one of a few ways:

A BTC price crash triggers it. If
Regulators decide they've had enough of AML avoidance and regulate them.
The NYAG investigation, which is waiting for an update in a few weeks, finds something and shuts them out.

Let's assume tether falls to $0 for simplicity. The analysis is the same directionally if tether significantly "breaks the buck".
This doesn't happen instantly, but it happens quickly. The peg breaks, and most people holding tether will try to sell it for other crypto (BTC, ETH, etc.). This puts downward pressure on the price of tether, incentivizing even more people to "pass the buck". Automated inter-exchange arbitrage bots might try to exploit emerging gaps in bid-ask spreads, only to end up with worthless tether instead, as their operators rush to pull the plug.
Then, we have a small village of cryptocurrency enthusiasts being out some $24B. With the trading bots turned off and the trading lubricant (a dollar pegged asset) gone, the bid-ask spreads blow up. You get a predictable flight to safety -- that is, to real money. This puts downward pressure on BTC.
While all of this is happening, there are all sorts of fun second-order effects happen. A lot of DeFi derivative products are priced in cryptocurrencies, so having normally stable prices shuffle around (eg. USDC price moving above $1 in a flight to safety) triggers a tsunami of margin calls. Some exchanges might insolvent (they're the ones redeeming tether for USD after all).

If BTC price drops below $8000, fun things happen

Currently, the price to mine a BTC is roughly $8000. Most of the mining comes from huge mining farms using subsidized coal in China, and mining costs more the more hardware there is to mine it.
Since the price of BTC hasn't substantially dropped below cost to mine we're in for a fun experiment if the price drops below this threshold. Most of these farms should turn off so that the price to mine comes back to breakeven in a case of prisoner's dilemma.
But if too much hardware turns off, this leaves mining hardware idle and the door becomes wide open to a 51% attack. It's not clear at what price below breakeven cost to mine a 51% attack becomes a serious threat, but once this threshold is crossed, we're in the "irreparable harm to BTC" risk zone.
And for a person like me, who just wants to see crypto disappear forever this is very exciting.
Maybe those mining farms could be replaced with nice forests soaking up all the carbon they emitted for posterity. One can hope.

How do I bet against all of this?

Microstrategy (MSTR) is, at this point, a bitcoin ETF wearing the skinsuit of a dying software company.
Michael Saylor, MSTR's CEO, is quite the character. I wrote a lot about his lack understanding of what a currency is, but it's on another level to look at the early stages of a bubble pop and decide this is a good time to buy $10M more of the stuff, as seen here
However, this bubble is tame by Michael's standards. Look at the historical stock of his company
What's happening on the left is that Saylor pumped the numbers with accounting fraud then the SEC took issue with the fake numbers. The stock dropped 90% practically overnight. Their accountants, PWC, paid $51M in fines. Saylor and friends paid fines, partly with company stock.
You could also short GBTC, but when Mr. Saylor provides you with an options market instead, why not use it? Shorting on crypto exchanges that might become insolvent in the very event you want to happen with this bet is a bad idea, on the other hand.

Mike can't cash out

The bitcoin market is illiquid and leveraged when it comes to real money coming in and leaving the ecosystem. Buys in the $10M-$100M seemingly move the price of BTC by upwards of $1000 in the last weeks. This means hundreds of millions of real money means tens of billions in movement in BTC market capitalization.
Now imagine what cashing $1.1B of BTC into real money would mean for the price. And this is purely in market terms, before the PR damage from bitcoin's demigod abandoning ship would have second-order effects.
Saylor has painted himself into a corner. Even if he wanted to cash out, he can't.

MSTR fundamentals: Why it should be valued below $10

In early 2020, MSTR was a slowly dying business. The EBITDA has been rapidly evaporating in the last 5 years
At that point, MSTR a stock price of $115 meaning a market cap of $1.1B. This included some $560M of cash they were sitting on. I presume the remaining $550M was an implicit sales premium for the inevitable private equity firm investors expected was going to relieve them of this stock and make the business profitable again.
Of course, they didn't sell.
Instead, they took the $560m they were sitting on and bought $400m of BTC at prices $11k and $13k in late summer 2020. Then, in early December, they took on $600m of debt to buy BTC with at $23k. They also bought $10m more in January at a price of $30.5k.
At this point, we can mostly value MSTR like a trust.

Price the underlying software business as being worth $600M, as the market did before the bitcoin nonsense. If BTC went to $0, this is what we'd value it at, and the MSTR stock should be around $65.
But wait! MSTR took on $650M in debt in December. Their actual value with a BTC priced at $0 should be much, much lower than $65 depending on how you value the debt. You could make an argument it should be in the single digits.
They hold 70,784 BTC. At current prices ($32,000) this is worth roughly $2.2B. With the current market cap of MSTR ($577 stock price), this means MSTR is currently priced at an eye watering $3B premium over fundamental value.

GBTC's 20% premium-to-NAV is a joke compared to the MSTR premium.

US States That Allow 18+ Casino Gambling | States With 18

what states let you gamble at 18

what states let you gamble at 18 - win

GME Short Squeeze What Comes Next Part 3

For ALL THOSE WHO MISSED ON GME, LOST MONEY OR BAGHOLDING...THIS IS THE ENDGAME 🚀

Losing touch extended version - now with ideas for changes

Red Stars

RTA and the Battlepass

Doom raid

Availability of new characters

New player problems

Skillitary/new teams videos

War

Resource bottlenecks

Help us help you

Finishing remarks

GME Short Squeeze What Comes Next Part 3

GME Short Squeeze What Comes Next Part 3

A Draft Pick, Free Agent Signing and Trade Target for all 32 teams

Arizona Cardinals (8-8)

Atlanta Falcons (4-12)

Baltimore Ravens (11-5)

Buffalo Bills (13-3)

Carolina Panthers (5-11)

Chicago Bears (8-8)

Cincinnati Bengals (4-11-1)

Cleveland Browns (11-5)

Dallas Cowboys (6-10)

Denver Broncos (5-11)

Detroit Lions (5-11)

Green Bay Packers

Houston Texans (4-12)

Indianapolis Colts (11-5)

Jacksonville Jaguars (1-15)

Kansas City Chiefs (14-2)

Las Vegas Raiders (8-8)

Los Angeles Chargers (7-9)

Los Angeles Rams (10-6)

Miami Dolphins (10-6)

Minnesota Vikings (7-9)

New England Patriots (7-9)

New Orleans Saints (12-4)

New York Giants (6-10)

New York Jets (2-14)

Philadelphia Eagles (4-11-1)

Pittsburgh Steelers (12-4)

San Francisco 49ers (6-10)

Seattle Seahawks (12-4)

Tampa Bay Buccaneers (11-5)

Tennessee Titans (11-5)

Washington Football Team (7-9)

The next BTC crash could be something to behold

Disclaimer

A Recap: Bitcoin is useless and should go away

Current BTC prices are a bubble

Tether is lunacy

KYC and AML are coming for cryptocurrencies

Tether's effect on the crypto ecosystem

If BTC price drops below $8000, fun things happen

How do I bet against all of this?

Mike can't cash out

MSTR fundamentals: Why it should be valued below $10

what states let you gamble at 18 video

what states let you gamble at 18 top

Jason Aldean - Fly over States - YouTube