StayHumble
9 hours ago
UPDATE💹Funders Wait 💹 2Ensure $DBMM Still Trades✅ idiot.
$DBMM has the Ability to move forward, to continue to grow its business, benefits its shareholders and asks that the Commission affirm the decision of the Law Judge denying revocation of its registration.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Company submits that revocation of its registration is not necessary and appropriate for the protection of investors, and that the denial of revocation should be affirmed.
Dated: March 26, 2021
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/Maranda Fritz_____________________ Maranda E. Fritz
Maranda E. Fritz PC
335 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Source: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/apdocuments/3-17990-2021-03-26-respondent-appellees-brief.pdf
Great Stuff
12 wins
4+Years Compliance
Deterrent
Kramer $DBMM $GTII $HPIL HUD
fung_derf
10 hours ago
While I appreciate the polite response, and it seems you understand SOME of the workings of the system, you are incorrect on several points. I have no clue what your level of sophistication is, but I can assure you mine is quite far reaching. I've lunched with Presidents, Billionaires, and Fed Chiefs. I've delved into questions, not because I needed to know, but because I want to understand how lies can spread and truths get tossed aside. I've researched for years and even given lectures on some of these topics.
I really don't care to get into this one further, because,.... well I really don't care. Also, I have other penny stocks right now I'm trying to educate people on (and as usual on IHUB, failing until its too late).
My 15 minutes here showed me enough to see there is nothing at all special here, in fact, its quite unspectacular. This is just another penny stock company that promises one day to try to do something.....maybe. Somewhere along the lines, someone started a rumor about naked shorts and this is all it takes on the internet. I watched the story of CMKX spiral madly for 20 years. Their story included President Obama, Queen Elizabeth, The Pope, and Buffalo Bill. How do people buy into this stuff???? How do you?
People get greedy, then they need to blame others for their mistakes. It's a sad truth that 98% of the people on IHUB won't buy a real company stock. They'd rather buy the lottery ticket.
IF you are buying a stock, not for what they do, but because someone convinced you there is something nefarious, then you are greedy and no different than the victims in the movie The Sting. Greedy people get taken by smarter greedy people.
Now, I could explain to you all the mistaken ideologies you have taken on and built on, but why? You're not going to believe me anyway.
You would have been much further ahead had you been reading my stock board for the last 17 years and buying real companies then trying to defend your buys in companies like ERHE.
otterman
11 hours ago
Unfortunately theres nothing new in what you say, only some of the readers changed. Or maybe they havent as no one really knows whos who.
As the longest residing patsy I can clearly say that Linda certainly hasent.
And even though the points you make are valid, theyve been said 7000 times before even in the past year, and they will be met with the same resistance, mocking, denile, and ridicule they always are.
No one pushes back, so Linda keeps using the same MO and half the board appears to eat it up all while defending the fort against the agenda weilding bashers.
Yeah, entertainment it is for sure. Its certainly not wise investing.
Krombacher
21 hours ago
Response to fung_derf: Let’s Clear the Air and Stick to the Facts
Fung_derf, I appreciate you taking the time to write a thoughtful response—and you make some valid points about how market orders work, market makers, and even hedge funds' strategies. You’re a veteran on these boards, no doubt about it. But let’s zoom out a little and walk through this carefully, because some things need clarification.
---
1. Temporary Naked Shorting (Market Making) Isn’t What We’re Talking About
You’re correct: market makers are permitted to engage in temporary naked short selling to facilitate market liquidity, especially on thinly traded stocks. No disagreement there. It’s part of how the system works.
But there’s a difference between:
Legitimate market-making naked short selling, which is covered quickly, and
Persistent failures to deliver (FTDs) and systemic abuse of those exemptions, where naked shorts aren’t covered in a reasonable timeframe and synthetic supply is created without real shares backing them.
That’s where naked short selling becomes abusive, and regulators have acknowledged that repeatedly (Reg SHO, anyone?). So, while the concept of temporary naked shorting is valid, abuse is where the problem lies.
---
2. CMKX Was an Inside Fraud—Agreed!
We can agree that CMKX was a mess.
There was insider fraud, dilution, and likely unrestricted printing of shares.
I’m not here to argue CMKX was a legitimate play. I’m making a broader point about how revocation serves short sellers in a situation like that.
Revocation lets shorts (even legitimate ones) off the hook, because there’s no longer an active market to reconcile positions. Whether the "short" was 5%, 50%, or synthetic, the game ends at revocation. You don’t have to “close out” a position if the asset doesn’t trade anymore.
---
3. Revocation and "Stuck on the Books"—Not Quite
You said:
> "Shorts cannot 'close out their positions on revoked stocks'. It sits on their books."
The real-world mechanics are a little different.
Once a stock is revoked and no longer trades, brokers write off the position.
There’s no market, so there’s no requirement to buy back shares.
The position may “sit on their books,” but with a zero mark, and they often treat it as a non-recourse gain. Ask any experienced trader: that’s the end of the liability in practice, even if the paperwork technically shows something different.
That’s why revocation is a short’s best friend when they’re deep underwater. They never have to cover at real prices—just book their gains at zero.
---
4. DBMM Escaped Revocation—And That Matters
Unlike CMKX, DBMM survived the revocation process.
That’s huge because it means short positions remain active.
Shorts are still obligated to reconcile their positions if DBMM management ever acts decisively (e.g., a preferred share dividend or buyout).
The fact that DBMM isn’t revoked is a pressure point for any short positions—no matter how big or small.
---
5. Patrick Byrne and Overstock—Facts vs. Personality
You referenced Patrick Byrne and called him a nutcase (you’re not alone in thinking that), but let’s separate Byrne the person from Overstock the case study.
Overstock’s preferred share dividend exposed the problem naked shorts had: they couldn’t deliver what didn’t exist.
The fact that Overstock had lawsuits and Byrne was eccentric doesn’t change the mechanics that worked.
Even if Byrne was a "nut," his playbook worked—shorts were trapped, and they had to scramble.
Byrne’s legacy isn’t about his personality. It’s about the fact that naked shorting was cornered when he forced delivery.
---
6. "This One Is Different"—Cynicism vs. Opportunity
You’ve seen it all in 25 years. I get it. You’ve heard “this one is different” a hundred times.
But ask yourself:
Why is DBMM still here after escaping revocation?
Why are some brokers flagging share availability?
Why would anyone bother discussing a preferred share dividend if the problem wasn’t real?
Maybe it’s worth being a little open-minded that this situation has different dynamics than others you’ve seen.
---
7. Final Thought: It’s Not About Belief, It’s About Strategy
I’m not here to sell belief. I’m pointing out that:
Revocation ends the game for shorts. DBMM didn’t get revoked.
A preferred share dividend exposes short positions. Shorts can’t print those.
Management has tools. The question is: Will they use them?
For shorts still in play? Better to cover before they do.
Appreciate your experience, fung_derf. But sometimes, the game really is different.
— Krombacher
P.S. If you do decide to dig into DBMM, let me know. I’d be curious to hear what you find.