Let's not be too critical with that one. Obviously I blurred the time line a little to hit on certain parts I felt were more relevant. None of this has been about a shorters upside potentially increasing. Not covering at all, possible or not, is their obvious max. Also obvious is that each tick closer to where they shorted is the sliding scale of profit potential. That actually bolsters my point even more since their max profit potential is set in stone but their potential losses are theoretically unlimited. Just goes to show how greed can bury anyone regardless what side of line you stand. In this case that the loss potential was extremely minimal but rather than accept it, the dice were rolled.. besides, this case was still a little more complicated than just that. The scam part had of this squeeze had a lot to do with some illegal monopolizing of available shares.. I'm not justifying that but clearly not the same here if that number of 1300+ kmag shareholders is accurate. Also different in that situation is what contributed to that pps skyrocketing. Shorts in that case decided to play a game of musical chairs by shorting other shorters, basically fueling itself as it went.
I don't recall the MM but do remember statements made by the man behind the keyboard at the time.
See, I think the opinions here really don't have to be as divided as they are.. I completely acknowledge what you say based on your stance there is no short position. If you're correct then obviously there's zero chance anyone here will ever see a shorty squealing.. On the flip side of that at least acknowledge the theoretical results of a large nss position if forced to cover during some head turning material event.. If it makes it any easier just remove 'kmag' from the conversation and insert some hypothetical ticker in its place. Argue the legitimacy of Kmag, Kma, Reid, Reed, Jeff and Duncan as a separate issue... Just saying that arguments hold a lot less weight when blanketing every talking point with the word 'impossible'.
