the IRP program favors transparency with paid promoters who have a conflict of interest. i'm suggesting debt holders also have a conflict of interest -- and many here would agree -- because they benefit when the price of stocks fall, and in the process they often roast retail shareholders.
the flipside is when retail LONGS benefit, i.e., as a stock rises, these same debt holders (who converted at a tiny fraction of the pps) make out even better than most bulls.
so yes, on each side of the trade, debt holders make huge money, but more often than not, and we see this in the vast majority of "ski slope down" penny charts, retail gets destroyed as toxic debt holders kill companies.
furthermore, as it stands, toxic lenders get to hide behind "10K" order sizes on level 2, while the rest of us lowly traders (the ones with typically less money and fewer shares) are forced to disclose our order sizes. isn't that a bit backwards? shouldn't transparency favor the folks who have 50 million shares on offer and are going to destroy the chart in a few minutes? it's like telling locomotives to turn their headlights off when entering a tunnel.
this OTC rule change (as of a few years ago) was sold to us as bringing "greater transparency" but in the process it actually created a murkier environment favoring the rich and powerful. i see nothing wrong with creating more transparency here on ihub, when it's already such a tilted playing field.
and let me be clear, i am not saying ihub must act. this is at ihub's discretion, and as admin shelly said earlier, the IRP program is there to conform with SEC policy, but i think at the very least, retail shareholders on ihub need to address this with the SEC and urge that agency, in turn, to create rule changes for more disclosure here on ihub, and on level 2 quotes.
thanks for your time.
