Yes at least we agree, what you are doing is nitpicking. Choose to put the arbitrary distinction of where the short squeeze ended in your mind (if it happened at all), and when supposedly the "rest" of the price action played out in order to argue on a technicality, I hardly see the point, but up to you. Cool, you're quoting the example of VW now, where they quadrupled in 2008. And that was in an era where the market was waaay less gamma-heavy, and didn't move nearly as quickly as it does today. And you know what, at 140% short, GME was still way more shorted than VW. And they will hold that record for a while. But somehow despite being in an absolutely unprecedented situation, we should believe that we would have seen a short squeeze that should just have led to a 10-20 or even 50% upside? Just like your arguments on "HFs would never take such a risk and lose that much on a trade" after seeing 2 funds doing exactly that literally days ago. Do you believe your own arguments? No matter, I don't even care what technically drove the price higher. It's certainly not fundamentals, despite how you want to bring that in the discussion . It is clearly technical price action and gambling. But that's fine in my book. Do you know a single market where price is solely based on fundamentals? Hedge funds wouldn't even exist. What is just particularly shitty in that situation is that as the situation unfolded, it became apparent that even the gambling was super rigged, and that if you try to play the same game as the HFs, they won't tolerate it and change the rules. Clearly you don't mind, but again- many people do mind, and that's my only real point here.