this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
762 points (99.1% liked)

Games

16948 readers
621 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
762
Unity May Never Win Back the Developers It Lost in Its Fee Debacle (www.wired.com)
submitted 1 year ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works
83 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This has nothing in common with insider trading and doesn't resemble it in any way. The shares he sold weren't a relevant proportion of his ownership. He didn't sell then deliberately tank them. He sold then announced something he thought would improve the value of his big stake in the company. The decision almost definitely cost him a lot of money by substantially lowering the trajectory of his company's ability to maintain market share.

[–] SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He sold then announced something he thought would improve the value of his big stake in the company.

In what universe?

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If he didn't think the announcement would improve the value of the company, why did they do it?

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Exactly. It was plopping his dick on the table, then realizing "oh shit, no one actually is impressed by this".

Insider trading would be more "I know we're about to get sued for this egregious fuckup and have no defense, so I'm going to sell before the news leaks". Strategy knowledge can be part of insider trading, but it would tend to be more buying shares because you have advanced knowledge that a highly lucrative contract has been signed before the announcement. It would be harder to have selling because of a strategy decision be insider trading unless you were opposed to it internally, because decisions you make are intended to make the shareholders (you) money.

[–] SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

So he would get a huge bonus from the short term gains, and then dip before the company suffered the long term damages.