April 8, 2022
the idea that adding more rules or trying to specify some added or new category that needs regulated serves as a challenge to those which is seeks to regulate. in a completely fraudulent market like the one this rule proposes to, is moot, the notion that those affected by the rules will suddenly be able to stop the revenue stream their lies create is doubtful.
like the reporting of any data from an SRO, we rely on their discretion for the production of truth. though as this rule implies in very clear text is that no one is following any rules currently. which naturally poses the question, why would they start now and who is going to enforce these rules, or do we continue to embarrass the term and pretend that minuscule fines have any impact. the only people these fines hurt are the ones that don't have the liquidity for them to just be a part of doing business? regulation that picks and chooses who must follow the rules more strictly than others doesn't seem like a very streamlined or transparent system. if the data is not freely and easily available as stated in the rules of the market then we're already failing at the first step, any rules after this failure become obsolete.
honesty and clear communication are the only ways we can dig ourselves out of this mess. as long as commissions and regulatory bodies and lawmakers continue to lie and deceive those they're meant to protect their promises of justice are voided.
if you have the data, and youre withholding it from the public to protect organizations you regulate then there's your problem. i have personally seen the data up to date for the shorts report, and it's cold hard evidence that this regulatory commission has fallen short on to protect investors. it's a slap in the face of everyone who put faith in this market and believed that it would operate fairly for everyone to make such a bold claim that this rule will have any effect.