so i actually have no problem with the beginning of the article / the initial trade (close the 1.6% spread in implied stock price by selling a ton of deltas in options while buying back the underlying) since that's just good trading the behavior at the close is what's egregious

so first of all, he's kind of butchering this explanation but he's doing that to sort of obscure the really massive grift that's hiding in plain sight

here's the reality: YOU DON'T HEDGE YOUR EXPIRING DELTAS BY TRADING THE UNDERLYING IF THE UNDERLYING IS WAY LESS LIQUID THAN THE DERIVATIVES MARKET if jane street wanted to replace their expiring deltas (the short deltas that were about to convert into cash) and they were NOT

if it weren't already obvious that this is some INCREDIBLY half-assed jane street apologism: LOOK AT HOW FUCKING DUMB HIS 'MARKING THE CLOSE' ARGUMENT IS he genuinely puts into words the following sentence: "erm actually since jane street aggressively sold over the last hour 🤓

if the rest of the article wasn't infuriating enough, he has the gall to claim that sucking $500m out of india was somehow making the markets MORE EFFICIENT and BENEFITTING RETAIL TRADERS the last sentence is just as nasty though: he references the arbitrage at the beginning of

if i had more time, i would do a matt levine-style article about matt levine and his likely involvement with jane street. i would structure it something like "oh boy, matt levine is in bed with jane street. that's weird!! there are two reasons: 1. matt levine is an

i think seeing someone i admire turn evil is triggering me more than it should. but the real evil here is just jane street, plain and simple for anyone as confused as matt levine clearly (might) be, it does NOT MAKE MARKETS MORE EFFICIENT TO MARK THE CLOSE

guys did i get rage baited by jane street