Viking — fair points, but they rest on assumptions that don’t actually apply to how synthetic exposure works. The issue isn’t whether “1B+” is the right number. The issue is whether large-scale synthetic shorting is structurally likely. It is, and here’s why:
1. Synthetic exposure doesn’t require 1B real shares to trade. Total return swaps, CFDs, and market-maker exemptions allow synthetic short positions to be created without corresponding real share volume. This is exactly how Archegos built positions that exceeded the float of multiple stocks. Historical trading volume doesn’t cap synthetic exposure.
2. Synthetic positions don’t create voting rights. Swaps and exempt shorts don’t generate ballots, and brokers reconcile votes to avoid over-reporting. That’s why even in documented naked-short cases, you rarely see vote totals exceed shares outstanding (See AMC). Vote counts don’t reveal synthetic exposure.
3. OTC structure actually increases the probability, not decreases it, with lower transparency, greater market-maker locate exemptions, minimal institutional lending supply, high retail ownership, and thin borrow availability. That combination makes synthetic hedging more likely, not less.
4. NWBO’s float structure is the real driver. NWBO has a tightly held float, long-term retail holders, and very little borrowable supply. When borrow is scarce, dealers hedge swaps synthetically. That’s mechanical, not speculative.
5. The exact number is unknowable — but the mechanism is real. Whether the synthetic exposure is 50M, 200M, or more, the point is that the structure exists for it, and NWBO’s float dynamics make it more—not less—probable.
So, the debate shouldn’t be about whether “1B+” is the right figure. The real question is whether the market structure allows for large synthetic exposure in a stock with NWBO’s characteristics. It does.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
