Member Info for MassiveRay

Which one do you you think happens today chabs?

Could be either, could be neither.

A stay-related update would at least tie into publicly known events already on the table. A raise is always possible in a small speculative company, especially after volatility and volume.

But this is exactly why I keep coming back to probabilities rather than absolutes.

You see:

128 SINTs vs 28 trades,

no supporting RNS,

and conclude “obvious manipulation”.

I see:

cosmetic tape activity probably occurring,

but also repeated large-scale buying and selling taking place at materially higher prices than the lows,

which suggests there are still genuine participants willing to speculate despite the risks.

If an RNS lands and it’s catastrophic, the market will react. If it’s constructive, the market will react to that too.

That’s why I think “raise or stay” is a much more rational discussion than pretending every uptick was purely fictional from the outset.

In this case, I think some of the observations are fair, but the conclusions often become overly absolute:

“everything is manipulation,”

“all buyers are trapped,”

“certain death spike,” etc.

That’s where it starts looking more like persuasive narrative-building than objective tape analysis.

So you see chbs there's the shorters perspective and the bulls perspective - the truth might be somewhere in the middle.

I think you’re mixing together two separate points again.

Do I agree the repeated tiny prints can cosmetically influence the displayed last price in an illiquid stock? Yes.

Do I agree that speculative FOMO buyers likely chased momentum higher without supporting news? Also yes.

But that still doesn’t automatically prove the entire move was artificially propped up.

Because if the underlying demand was completely fake, the stock would not have absorbed multi-million share sells while continuing to transact size materially above the lows for days afterwards.

Also, the absence of an RNS doesn’t automatically invalidate a move. Markets often reprice ahead of news, expectations, sentiment shifts, positioning changes or legal interpretations — especially in distressed/speculative names.

And with respect, counting “SINTs vs market trades” on its own doesn’t really prove manipulation either. In low liquidity AIM stocks, tiny prints happen constantly because the market structure itself is fragmented and noisy.

I think it’s fair to say:

there are clear risks,

there may be some cosmetic tape activity,

and the move may ultimately fail.

But I still think it’s an overreach to claim every buyer above 0.2p was simply manipulated into a fake market

The important thing is separating:

legitimate concerns around funding/legal risk,from:

the assumption that every buyer is a manipulated idiot and every uptick is fake.

Because the tape over the last few days simply hasn’t been that one-dimensional in my opinion.

But the key point is none of those explanations automatically prove the move was entirely fabricated or destined to immediately collapse.

A large seller exiting intelligently can still coexist with genuine buyers accumulating risk. Likewise, speculative punters entering doesn’t invalidate the demand — speculative markets are built on differing views of risk and reward.

The tape so far looks more like a contested repricing event than a clean “everyone is being conned” scenario. If it was truly one-way distribution only, I’d expect the market to have folded much harder after the volume we saw.

Also worth remembering: if this was supposedly nothing more than a completely artificial “painted” move, you’d normally expect the price to completely unravel the moment heavy selling appeared.

Instead, we repeatedly saw:

million-share sells absorbed,

buyers reappearing after pullbacks,

and the market continuing to transact meaningful size well above the panic lows.

That doesn’t prove the bull case is right. But it does suggest there are participants willing to speculate on outcomes beyond the outright disaster scenario that was being priced in previously.

And ultimately, the market doesn’t care about certainty — it reprices based on changing probabilities and sentiment. In distressed microcaps, that process is rarely clean or orderly.

You’re also assuming the rise “wasn’t supported”, yet despite repeated heavy sells the stock spent days holding materially above the lows and repeatedly found buyers willing to absorb size.

As for the tiny prints, I’ve already said I agree they can cosmetically influence the displayed last price in illiquid names. That happens.

Where we differ is that you seem to view every example of microstructure gamesmanship as proof the broader move itself is fake. I think the tape suggests a mixture of:

speculative FOMO buying,

genuine risk-taking,

market-maker games,

and opportunistic trading all happening simultaneously.

That’s usually how these volatile microcaps behave in reality.

I don’t disagree that tiny 10-share prints can cosmetically influence the displayed last price in illiquid microcaps. That clearly happens across AIM.

Where I disagree is the leap from: “some tape painting exists” to: “therefore the entire move is fake and all demand is fabricated.”

Those are two very different claims.

Because the same tape also showed multi-million share sells being absorbed without the stock collapsing back to the lows. In a genuinely dead market with no real buyers, that usually doesn’t happen.

So yes, microstructure gamesmanship probably exists here. But the tape also suggests there are genuine speculative buyers willing to take size despite the risks.

That’s a much more nuanced picture than simply screaming “pump and dump” at every trade.

That’s a more reasonable and structured argument than just shouting “manipulation” at every print — but I still think you’re overstating what the tape actually proves.

Yes, the repeated 10-share 0.3999 trades are obvious and clearly being used to ping the offer / set the last traded price near 0.40. Nobody sensible would deny that.

But the leap from:“small trades influencing the displayed last price”to:“the whole move is fake and entirely painted”is where I think the argument weakens.

Because the same tape also shows:

multiple genuine six and seven-figure share transactions,

buyers repeatedly willing to absorb heavy selling,

and the stock holding materially above the lows despite millions of shares hitting the market.

If the demand was completely artificial, those 2.4m and 1.36m sells should have completely cratered the price in a low liquidity AIM stock. Instead, sizeable buying kept reappearing around the 0.37–0.39 area.

So I’d separate two things:

Microstructure gamesmanship around the displayed last price — which probably is happening.

The broader move itself being entirely fabricated — which the tape doesn’t conclusively prove to me.

In illiquid microcaps, both real speculative demand and cosmetic tape activity can coexist at the same time

Find it astonishing that chaebol say's he's smarter than everyone else. Try to imagine this Lancashire dimwit standing up in a room full of shareholders saying this. Lol

Looking at the full afternoon tape, the main thing I see is absorption.

You had:

a 2.4m sell,

a 1.36m sell,

later an 80k sell,

and yet the market still attracted repeated million-share buys afterwards at higher levels around 0.37–0.38.

That’s important.

If this was truly a completely exhausted “death spike” with nobody willing to touch it, you’d normally expect those large sells to completely nuke the bid and cascade lower. Instead, buyers kept stepping in.

The tiny 10-share 0.3999 prints are still irrelevant noise to me. They look more like somebody poking the offer/MM than some grand manipulation conspiracy.

The meaningful activity is:

large blocks continuing to transact,

price broadly stabilising after heavy distribution,

and buyers still willing to take size above 0.36.

That doesn’t mean the risks disappear tomorrow. But purely from a tape-reading perspective, it looks more like an active battle for repricing rather than a one-way collapse being artificially propped up.

How's your short going?

He's all of a sudden become extremely busy reading every single message here. 😉

But apparently 'low IQ' individuals haven't had his measures ages ago.

Right gotta goooooooooooo fun to see........

Not your usual style is there's ? definitely a rattled change of approach:)

I’ve noticed whenever someone disagrees with you, the default response is “low IQ”.

Usually when people are confident in their argument, they stick to the facts rather than trying to diminish everyone else personally.

You clearly put a lot of time into your research and opinions, but constantly framing anyone who sees things differently as unintelligent weakens your argument more than it strengthens it.

Markets are probabilities, not certainties. Different views are what make them exist in the first place.

Low volume after a volatile move doesn’t automatically mean “calm before the storm” any more than high volume automatically confirmed collapse earlier in the week.

Quite often after aggressive repricing, markets pause while participants wait for the next real catalyst — in this case likely the court developments or any company clarification.

And to be fair, if the stock was supposedly being held up by endless artificial activity, you’d probably be highlighting the low volume today as evidence the market makers have stopped “painting the tape”. If volume was huge, that would also somehow prove manipulation. That’s the issue with narrative anchoring — every outcome gets interpreted the same way.

What makes you believe your iQ is more superior chaebol? You seem to always use this to put others down that disagree with you

It's funny because according to chaebol the MMs have been busy conspiring to manipulate the sp...

The tape really looks that way as the sp sits in this current range