So I’m a massive fan of where this community is going and how @Conqueror has tried to bring the entire community along on what usually ends up being semi-official community plays (usually gamma squeezes). I’m also extremely grateful for the personal ownership required of everyone and the accompanying work that is necessary for people to push through on their own (with support) in order to truly learn how to trade well.
That said, there have been several of the last few plays where our community is exposed to unnecessary extra risk due to our homogeny, honesty and transparency. Whether it’s reddit/twitter pump and dumpers or people lurking in our community that are specifically targeting our willingness to share our plays and then (due to that shared vision) undercut our play, it all makes us easy targets. Gamma plays, even near perfect setups like ESSC, are more delicate and easier to derail, even right up until the hedging gets going.
In order to help the community as a whole, I’d suggest that we define some specific roles in plays like these that people can assume (voluntarily of course). My suggestion is for community members (with significant funds) to take positions that support and defend the community plan and all of the smaller position holders against the exploitation we’ve seen. It shouldn’t all fall on one or two guys to have to hold our collective position against a twitter dump. Whether it’s setting hard support levels, breaking through resistances, keeping volume up at a specified level, or any number of additional roles that can and should be nailed down, it would allow for better community cooperatives and lower risk for each individual. It also would allow these role groups to share with the rest of our community when they have seen their role in the play break or hold true (requiring the play to be reassessed by everyone). We could have specific chat threads for these groups (that only they and oversight should see) that would allow them to work out their role plays together and hopefully be more supportive of the play in general. This, along with stronger plans on exiting the plays on preplanned % gains, would allow us to continue being transparent on our actions and keep sharing our amazing community with everyone, while making sure we aren’t overexposing ourselves.
I’d suggest that those individuals most well versed on these plays help to define how these roles actually would look/act and how they would be managed by the community.
This is just a suggestion and I’m of course welcome to any and all additional thoughts and criticism.
I appreciate the suggestion, however, as I understand it, it gets a little too close to legal grey areas for my liking.
I do however agree that our transparency and openness became a hinderance to ESSC. I’m not sure if you read it, but my recent “Community Changes Preview” highlights some changes that we’re implementing to combat this issue in the future:
The gist however is that there will be delay in the information that is given the the “outside world” and that invites will not longer be open and we’re moving to an application process. This is in addition to establishing a better system for handling these plays overall.
I’m confident that with these changes introduced, we won’t find that the issues of ESSC will be often reoccurring.
I had read the post, and I mostly just wanted to see if there was an alternative to permanently closing the gates.
I am one of those that would not have gone through the process of applying, had that extra step been in place when I first came, and I would be so much the worse for having missed out due to my regular skepticism. I didn’t want to disregard those that, like me, are wary of anyone I don’t already know wanting to know details about me… especially when it comes to ways to make/lose money. After going back through it and comparing, I agree that your solution is safer, easier to implement, and is more appropriate at this time given what just transpired. Thanks!