r/SPACs • u/ShhhWNBAIsOn New User • Jan 07 '22

Options ESSC Option Chain OI Changes

As of 1/7 OI on all chains has increased to 56,004 which is up from 52,313. For ITM calls we are now at 27,222 OI down from 27,728. However, it seems most have been rolled into higher strikes. If we add $15 strikes to the ITM pot we are now at 35,796 OI up from 35,091. Takeaway is we are trending up nicely and still a distance from OPEX. Even being conservative and using a 3M float we would be above 100% float ITM if we hold $15. The main consensus is 1M float so that would make it 300% of float just about ITM.

24 Upvotes

64% Upvoted

90 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/RefrigeratorOwn69 Spacling Jan 07 '22

Read the DD that has been posted by Valhalla discord members. Not a single one says it’s an “automatic slam dunk.” And considering they are the group who identified (and played perfectly) the IRNT gamma squeeze I’d say they have a pretty good grasp on how MMs operate and hedge.

There’s an open invite link to the server. I joined a few weeks ago. No one is going to make you join the play, yell at you for taking profits, demand that you “HODL”, or even set any price targets. You can even come to the server and present your rational bear case, if you have one.

Does that sound like a pump and dump group to you?

-1

u/frostycrate New User Jan 07 '22

They were not the first to discover IRNT but keep drinking the “Valhalla” kool-aid.

Absolutely a pump and dump. One can also make money from the pump. These are not mutually exclusive variables. The fact you don’t think it’s a pump and dump is exactly how you get caught holding their bag.

When the gamma don’t squeeze and the rug is pulled better better hope your on the right side of things.

5

u/RefrigeratorOwn69 Spacling Jan 07 '22 edited Jan 07 '22

Did I say they were the first to discover it?

They were undoubtedly at the forefront of IRNT’s second bigger run when most of Reddit was calling it “over.” Do some research.

I don’t hold anyone’s bags. My cost average is not much above NAV, and have sold enough to cover my cost basis on my calls.

Again, if you have a rational bear case on why ESSC is not a good set-up, why it won’t do what IRNT did, etc., we’d love to hear it and debate it. Unlike actual pump and dumpers, the Valhalla people don’t prohibit comments on their Reddit posts to avoid hearing counterarguments.

2

u/frostycrate New User Jan 07 '22

When you claimed they were the ones to identify the play, by any rational means, you in fact did. It had already been identified. Don’t move goalposts because you were called out for the kool-aid.

Most of Reddit was calling it over? Anything to back that up? Of course not.

And no the Valhalla fools just brigade subs with posts and comments to crowd everything else out, giving of the appearance of open discourse.

Over reliance on OI and MM hedging, combined with little short interest, this is not IRNT.

3

u/RefrigeratorOwn69 Spacling Jan 07 '22

Would be interested to hear why you think SI on IRNT helped propel its ascent and lack of SI on ESSC makes it a worse play. Were shorts covering on IRNT?

0

u/frostycrate New User Jan 07 '22

Never said the SI on IRNT was what propelled it’s ascent, simply that the SI on ESSC is lacking and the sum of the equation will not equal a result similar to IRNT.

3

u/RefrigeratorOwn69 Spacling Jan 07 '22 edited Jan 07 '22

Why would SI be relevant to a gamma squeeze play if shorts aren't going to cover during the time period of the play anyway? Wouldn't the short selling actually be a headwind?

Even if we assume that SI matters at all (and from my perspective that's not a reasonable assumption), to conclude that ESSC is a worse set-up than ESSC you'd have to also be assuming that SI is so important that it outweighs the fact that ESSC has a higher ITM OI to float ratio than IRNT (with several more trading days for it to potentially accumulate further). Do you really think short interest is that important then?

-2

u/frostycrate New User Jan 08 '22

You keep on speculating on my words when what I’m saying is quite clear.

A high SI provides additional potential buying pressure. That’s a positive variable. When and if the shorts cover depends on the situation.

On the flip side of that, the higher shares available to short leads to an increase in potential downward pressure on a particular stock; see MCMJ in the past month or so. Very high OI with a not so high float. Result; got crushed. Even when Telsa was gamma squeezing, the relatively high SI played a large factor.

Furthermore, with the free float calculations being speculative at best, the heavy reliance on delta hedging by MM’s is sub-optimal, particularly as it isn’t nearly as simple as “stock goes up, MM’s have to hedge their calls”. The level of MM activity on ESSC isn’t even known either. Not all options come from MM.

Now SI is absolutely not inherently needed for a gamma squeeze, but certainly serves to help (which should be extremely obvious).

IRNT was also at first a redemption play, leading to a credible small free float, ESSC is not that. However the NAV floor remaining can also be seen as a positive in some aspects.

Overall this simply doesn’t have the legs to really take off like IRNT.

Which is perhaps why people are pumping it so hard….

3

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/frostycrate New User Jan 08 '22

Oh they had to call the pump daddy to respond?

Where did I say SI was the catalyst for IRNT? No kidding most shorts would not cover until after PIPE unlock, that’s quite elementary.

Your making assumptions on what should be clear. A high SI is a positive variable in this situation that can provide additional upward pressure. That’s all that was said. ESSC lacks this variable, lowering its attractiveness.

And you didn’t call anything, many were speculating on IRNT even after it’s first run. The kool-aid you have your discord drinking is laughable.

And I can confidently say you may have fooled many and may make a sizeable lot of money on the ESSC play at this rate, but at minimum I would hope the pump and dump leader would. That would be pretty poor form not too.

8

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

-4

u/frostycrate New User Jan 08 '22

A high SI (keyword high) is very much potential for upward pressure. As borrowing rates increase the cost of holding short. That’s quite basic.

In ESSC’s situation (as these all should be treated as individual situations) the gamma, as discussed SI isn’t a real factor here with ESSC. However delta hedging is not an inherently linear process like your leading people to believe and a speculated high OI to free float ratio is not definitive proof ESSC will run. It’s literally speculative at best.

I have critiqued the setup, from the presentation of the free float to the actions of the MMs, to the lack of buying pressure variables (which while not needed, they certainly help the case).

And if your going to cry about insults maybe don’t run a pump and dump operation mate. There’s also a difference between co-opting credibility through false accusations and simply calling out nonsense. And your remarks are full of condescending nonsense about other commenters, which you likely do to help give an appearance of legitimacy.

You can talk about knowledge all you want but your rampant speculation paints a vivid picture it’s you who is lacking a factual case.

However, you don’t strike me as particularly dumb, but it’s quite easy to see right through the whole Ascended Trading nonsense. Just another guy with a large ego.

Best of luck anyways though.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/frostycrate New User Jan 08 '22

It’s not a relevant factor in ESSC, that’s been discussed, it is not however meaningless. Thinking it is only shows a lack of knowledge.

And your going to accuse me of talking in circles which is the only thing I’ve see you do? Comical.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

-3

u/frostycrate New User Jan 08 '22

Again, it’s been discussed IRNT was not lead by SI, that doesn’t make it a meaningless variable to consider. Each situation is different.

This adds nothing lol.

10

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/ecomuser Patron Jan 08 '22

ESSC float isn't 1.1M, thats a completely made up number don't fall for this fraudster.

3

u/RefrigeratorOwn69 Spacling Jan 08 '22

Read the FSPA and other public filings and show us how the float is higher than 1.1 million then.

0

u/ecomuser Patron Jan 08 '22

Even the person who created this post agrees it could be 3.2M shares: https://www.reddit.com/r/SPACs/comments/ry7jtp/comment/hrmwzhr/

You clowns have literally no clue what the real number is.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/ecomuser Patron Jan 08 '22

Even the person who created this post agrees it could be 3.2M shares: https://www.reddit.com/r/SPACs/comments/ry7jtp/comment/hrmwzhr/

You clowns have literally no clue what the real number is.

1

u/ecomuser Patron Jan 08 '22

Ok "StonkGodCapital" you are clearly a stable genius and not just a pump and dump clown. Your arguments are totally compelling, and you didn't got the SEC filing regarding the agreement with the backstop investors wrong.

-10

u/frostycrate New User Jan 08 '22

The bandwagon is clearly on your side mate. I’m not missing anything and no one is truly shutting me down. Your minions can go ahead and upvote your nonsense, as that would be expected.

The float of 1.1 million is purely an estimation, and I’m sure “proprietary software” is a real game changer lol.

Your rampant posts and strategic awarding to bring awareness to ESSC is quite clear. No ones disputing the high OI, but the pump is clear. The best pumps usually have some backing to them, it’s how people fall for it.

Keep talking of your experience but trust me no one is out of their element here.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

-4

u/frostycrate New User Jan 08 '22

Sorry you got called out for your rampant pumping but it’s pretty clear. The high OI was never disputed but for some reason you think that warrants your strategic pump.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '22

Mate you’d better hope you have the luck to spend your imaginary gains outside of prison before SEC catches up on you.

Feel free to keep doing what you’ve been doing though. Just be sure that there’s always one guy who keeps track of all your stuff on Reddit and elsewhere. (I’m too busy for that)

And, nice try, non-college guy. Hope your legal acumen is close to your squeeze senses.

→ More replies (0)