All credit goes to the author. Tried my best to abide by the brigading rules. # Why DRS Numbers May Have Come In Low ~ The Burger Chain Heat Lamp Theory. For those that don’t like analogies, skip to the bold part: Ok, for those of you who don’t know what a heat lamps are for in a fast food restaurant, here goes. In order to provide hamburger “liquidity”, fast food chains pre-make burgers and put them under heat lamps. That way, there’s always food ready to sell, the line flows faster, and customers get their food more quickly. It’s good for everyone generally speaking. Once a day (or a week or a month or even a year) restaurants count up inventory to balance their books. When do they do this? Usually after close, but sometimes they’ll start just a little early. Let’s say they close at 11pm, inventory is DUE at 11:30.

They know it’ll take half an hour to count inventory, and it’s 10:45pm with no customers in line and they start early. Now, there are some burgers under the heat lamp. “Should” they count those burgers in inventory? It also depends if they get sold or not, but once it’s 11:01, you should not count them in inventory as you “should” no longer sell them. What if you were a 3rd party who really didn’t want inventory to be accurate when it’s submitted. You wanted it to show really low for whatever reason when it’s submitted at 11:30pm.

Maybe you would have called the store at 10pm and told the store you had 3 buses of people coming. It’s 150 people, and they just want 2 burgers each. What would this do? It would reasonably “force” the manager to make the burgers and put them under the heat lamp pulling the ingredients from inventory. What does this do? It messes with inventory right when it’s going to be counted and submitted.

So, 11pm comes and the inventory and the bus doesn’t arrive. It’s 11:30 and the bus never came and the manager submits the inventory without counting those burgers under the heat lamp, and also without ringing up the sale in the register to balance the book because the sale never happened. The clock strikes 11:31, and surprise, surprise. The bus shows up, the driver apologizes, pays for the food, and everything is good.

The manager is not in trouble as he did what he should, got paid, and there was no waste. The ONE problem though? Inventory was off at the worst time and corporate is closed. The next day during business hours, everything is reconciled, EXCEPT what if the quarterly reports were published based on 11:30pm inventory? The numbers are going to be off until the next quarterly report.

This is my theory. I believe that false demand was created that pulled direct registered inventory at the worst possible time and replaced it just days after. I believe that a “fake squeeze” may have been “falsely” signaled which “forced” Computershare to move a lot of plan shares to the DTC just before inventory was to be counted. For those that don’t remember, S3 partners came out on Oct 28th saying “GME may squeeze and go parabolic if it hit’s $30” https://finance.yahoo.com/video/gamestop-stock-goes-above-30-151834745.html

Now, this would imply that volatility is coming which would validate the idea that liquidity would need to be provided. For those that don’t know, “an undisclosed amount of DSPP shares (which are plan shares) are held via broker at DTC”. This is Computershare’s “heat lamp”. It helps them move shares when they’re sold and they stock it based on what they believe is needed. THEY choose how many burgers go under the heat lamp (not GameStop). I believe that this “normally small” amount of plan shares held via broker at DTC can not be counted as direct registered shares in the same way that burgers under the heat lamp can’t/shouldn’t be counted as inventory once the restaurant closes. So, a big warning comes out in the national media that GME is going to “move”.

Liquidity will “need” to be provided. If I were the the powers that be, I’d ping the DTC telling them that GME is about to be volatile (with MSM “proof”). The DTC would then ping Computershare the article and say we need more shares under the heat lamp. That would provide the perfect “valid” excuse for Computershare to move many more shares than normal from DSPP to a broker at DTC the day before GameStop does their DRS count. Shares are moved, and the very next day, Oct 29th comes, which is the day the DRS count happens.

It comes in low. One trading day later (Oct 31), GME runs with LULD halt(s). The bus that they said would show up actually shows up. Although no DSRers sold their shares, the shares were moved temporarily “for good reason”. Now whether upward movement on the 31st was real, valid, or forced, the FACT that it ran and was volatile provides the perfect alibi for providing liquidity through movement of shares 2 trading days earlier. One mention is that I don’t believe that the run on the 31st was completely related to this theory. I believe it served a dual purpose.

It messed with DRS numbers, while also allowing their cyclical covering. TLDR: Oct 28th news (that apes all thought was sus) says that GME will run and I believe shares may have been moved. Oct 29th GME counts shares. Oct 31 (which is the very next trading day) GME runs validating the share movement. Whether or not this is correlated to low DRS numbers is just my own theory. # The Heat Lamp Theory: Why You’d Never Heard of it, How it Was Censored, and How Computershare is Likely Being Victimized by Short Hedge Funds Who are Abusing their Algorithm Going back to December of 2022 (before the first DRS disclosure numbers came in low), I believed that something bad was about to happen. Not only did I believe DRS numbers were going to come in low, but household investors had been groomed for weeks into believing that the numbers would come in exponentially high.

I noticed a narrative was being set that “the only thing that matters to household investors was that DRS disclosure numbers needed to come in high. Although household investors always get excited about these 10-Q and 10-K release days, this over ambitious excitement had never been vocalized so actively and so aggressively. The comments in posts also seemed to be slightly off topic in relation to the posts or comments they were replying to. This felt very unnatural to me. It was almost like this narrative was being forced upon the community. The numbers had always come in strong, not many people had made these comments before, and there really wasn’t much concern that anything was about to change.

I felt like expectations were being set exceptionally high, so that if/when they came in low, it would escalate the frustration of household investors. I didn’t feel this way because I had reason to be paranoid, but specifically because I noticed a narrative that was being created over the previous weeks in the community. I haven’t posted about this topic before, but when short hedge funds “need” the price of a stock to end at a certain level, I believe they purposely run the price up a significant percentage higher than that target level so that when they’re done manipulating the stock, the drop at the end amplifies negative sentiment. Frustration is the gap between expectations and reality (see image below). If expectations are artificially inflated, it optimizes frustration as it widens the gap between expectations and reality. This frustration then gives ammo to the bad actors where they then call you names like “bag holder” which attempt to pile on the frustration that they hope you’re feeling.

📷 Ok, back on topic, I felt like I needed to tell the community. Not because expectations needed to be kept in check but because I’d started to create a theory on how hedge funds were about to manipulate the DRS numbers. Before the numbers came out, I created an overly long titled post called “What if somehow wall st “convinced/coerced” Computershare to hold all plan shares at DTC (because the stock is so illiquid), and somehow made it “illegal” for GME to include those numbers in their totals because they’re held at DTC. Although that post was low effort and the speculation itself turned out not to be completely correct, my hunch was still valid. It was often attacked by what I believe were bad actors asking me to “prove someone made it illegal.”

A common tactic from disingenuous actors is to attack a small portion of your theory in order to attempt to discredit the whole thing, this is often referred to as a straw man argument, but we’ll get to that another day. My hunch on the “illegal” reference was extrapolated by the small blurb that Computershare added at the end of their one particular FAQ (shown below). It is up to individual companies what information on shareholdings they disclose to its investors or the general public and in what format within the confines of relevant legislation and regulation. 📷 That last little blurb.

That little last blurb! Did you catch that? “Within the confines of relevant legislation and regulation”? What the heck does that even mean? Why add that blurb in there UNLESS, there are…….(wait for it)……. existing confines. If there are confines, where are those confines so I can read them with my own eyes. Unfortunately, without a link to these confines of relevant legislation and regulation, I couldn’t “prove” that legislation or regulation existed or had changed because I didn’t have access to it. That makes it an easy primary target for bad actors. “JuSt CaUSe it SaYs COnFiNeS DoESn’T mEaN ThErE aRE cOnFInEs” Fast forward a few weeks, and guess what? Numbers came in low. **While everyone was immediately scratching their heads, and trying to figure out what happened, “THE excuse for why it happened” had already been created, and given a name.

Voila, “the rug pull”**. The freaking rug pull. This became widely accepted as truth literally overnight. How??? How did a handful of people in the community know for sure why the numbers came in low (without research nor discussion), and how did this theory already have a name? We’ll get back to that in just a bit. While trying to deviate from the false narrative that I believe was predetermined, I wanted to reintroduce my theory, but I believed I needed a little street cred to do so. If I’d predicted the numbers would come in low before they came in low, maybe household investors would listen to me regarding why I thought that would happen. I created a post called “[I Tried to Warn Apes that DRS Numbers Might Come in Low]

(https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/zfet6e/i_tried_to_warn_apes_that_drs_numbers_may_come_in/)” If you happen to click that link you may notice that the post started to get some traction, but was quickly deleted. Shout out to [redacted] for your comment used in the screenshot (shown below). It was a pleasure “jacking your tatas!” ​ https://preview.redd.it/yusuoqt2ffwa1.png?width=332&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=2b54a2fcf2b68a4142df645804c85cc78e6d73e5 https://preview.redd.it/5pb9v4l3ffwa1.png?width=322&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=c96d7eaec3217d97ada0dfdc4139585f8c7e613d

To recap: I had started to construct my theory, and both posts in the largest community had been deleted. The first low effort post was predicting the DRS disclosure numbers would come in low, and the 2nd post was a shameless plug declaring “I was right” along with a brief mention of possibly why. Fast forward, and something hit me one day. Was the massive trading volume just days after the fictitious articles in October stating “GameStop will go parabolic if it hits $30,” connected to all this? Something went off inside me that rocked my world.

That’s it! There’s a connection here. The massive volume and price spike happened RIGHT at the same time as the DRS cutoff date. I had to say something fast and I published a post called Was the S3 Squeeze Announcement Followed by the GME Run One Trading Day After the DRS Count Correlated with the Low DRS Numbers? The post stayed live and was accepted fairly well. At the bottom of the post I left a breadcrumb that there was more to the story, and I had something to say. Although I didn’t plan on revealing so quickly what I was about to write about, I couldn’t contain myself, and had to give a sneak peak asap which I did in the comments just a few hours later. ​ https://preview.redd.it/qosa6xq9ffwa1.png?width=632&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=49026c0ae66097782fe014a8599d68d34bc77682

My theory wasn’t completely formed yet, but I was getting there. They didn’t need an “excuse” to move the shares. My current belief is that the volume they created automatically pulled the shares (based on an algorithm), and the fictitious article(s) were just used to cover up why that had happened. One thing I want to mention if you didn’t notice, is that I spelled “plan” as “p1an.”. That wasn’t an accident at the time. I’d played a big role in fighting the suppression in the community that helped determine that “book and plan shares” are not “the same.” I’d like to thank each and every one of you who fought to help find the truth alongside me. Unfortunately, the fact that I was trying to open up discussion on the book/plan topic also made some people (with authority) mad enough to temporarily ban me for 7 days from one of the communities. It turns out that if a community deletes several of your posts to suppress them, they can then use your “pattern of behavior” as an excuse to suppress you and your content even more. It creates a feedback loop where the only thing that removes you from this loop is being quiet. **I like to call it “censorship through intimidation.

”** Over the next few days, I wrote my theory. My theory was complete (for the time), but it needed a place to live. Your best shot at getting traction and stickiness on a post is when it’s first posted? I had to make a decision. Do I post my theory to the community that banned me and keeps deleting my posts on this particular topic, or do I post my theory to a much smaller community where not as many household investors would see it, but at least one that would not delete it? I’d made my decision. I went with the less risky of the two choices as censorship is something I detest as much as abusive short sellers. Looking back, I know I made the right decision on where it was posted, but we’ll get into that a bit later. Before I get into explaining the Heat Lamp Theory, it dawned on me that I probably need to tell you what a heat lamp is and how they’re used in food service.

What is a heat lamp (for food)? Heat lamps for food are a type of overhead food warmer. They are used to keep food in your restaurant or food-service establishment warm typically for only a relatively short period of time. Heat lamps are especially effective for quick service restaurants where food can be prepared and stored before customer demand exists. Highly skilled restaurant managers are able to anticipate demand based on previous sales reports which allows them to serve food quickly without having much waste. This process allows products like a hamburger to be sold in under a minute even though it takes an average of 8 minutes to cook a hamburger. When restaurants are able to make and store food using this method, it creates efficiency in operations. ​ https://preview.redd.it/k9246uqcffwa1.png?width=834&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=eb7a020f949677d0938ee7762a0fd015ed220c55 TLDR (analogy) on the Heat Lamp Theory:

In order to serve a hamburger at a fast food restaurant in under a minute (operational efficiency), at least one hamburger needs to be cooked and ready at all times. Those burgers are normally held under a heat lamp to preserve quality. When volume is low (off hours), the amount of burgers under the heat lamp will be low. When volume is high (lunch and dinner), the number of burgers held under the heat lamp needs to be high in order for all customers to receive their burger in under one minute. If you’re the burger maker (Computershare), you just fill demand as it comes in. You don’t ask a lot of questions as you’re technically working for someone else (GameStop). If you make a mistake, as long as you’re following procedure, you didn’t do anything wrong. If no one is in the restaurant, you’ve been told not to cook the burgers nor put anything under the lamp (with the exception of one single burger just in case someone walks in).

However, if a 50 passenger bus (short hedge funds) showed up at your restaurant, the burger maker (Computershare) would start making a lot of burgers (because it’s policy). When 50 passengers walk in, you’ve been told to have 40 burgers ready so that you can serve them all in under a minute each. When it turns out that the bus was full of vegetarians, and the driver just needed to use the restroom, the burgers under the heat lamp didn’t need to be there which means the demand that pulled inventory was artificially false. The burger maker (Computershare) didn’t do anything wrong. They actually did everything right (according to policy).

They were just following training protocol that said that when walk-in customer volume is high, make a predetermined amount of burgers and get them under the heat lamp so that operations will flow efficiently. According to the top comment made by [redacted], my theory was the first theory that connected all the dots. Thank you kind sir. It feels liberating that I’m able to tag you here and show your username in the screenshot. It’s been 84 years. ​ https://preview.redd.it/5arprwlfffwa1.png?width=623&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=798feca4fc486715f95f33cdbe22eac677721d44

Although my theory was mostly accepted by most household investors as being possible (or even probable), my theory was still incomplete. There were 2 problems with it (that I didn’t know at the time). First, I believe there were only around 2 million plan shares in household investor accounts. I believed DRS counts were 10 million+ shares lower than the DRS disclosure which means there was a massive shortfall. That belief regarding the 2 million share estimate is based on 2 sources of data. The first is Computershared.net’s estimate which comes from a combination of the bot scraper, and from hand counting and sorting household investor screenshots. The 2nd source comes from the data from a [post I made 2 weeks ago]

(https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/12iyb6l/us_household_investors_have_made_approximately/) showing that “only” 100,000 direct purchase transactions have been made by US household investors in total over the last 20 months. If the average direct purchase was $400 or $500 (which I believe is a high estimate), that would still only be approximately 2 million plan shares. This also didn’t take into account the large influx of household investors that converted their shares from plan to book over the previous months which would lower the number even more. Not only would 500% of estimated plan shares need to be transferred to equal the DRS estimate made by Computershared.net, BUT that would also imply that Computershare wasn’t telling the truth regarding “only a small portion of aggregate DSPP shares were held at DTC for operational efficiency”.

I was very clear in my other post and I still believe this today: I believe that Computershare does not, and would not intentionally lie to household investors. Here is a great quote (below) that backs up my belief and understanding that Computershare is not at fault for the DRS manipulation counts. "In fact, in this hypothesis, Computershare is victimized by other market participants abusing the algorithm used to determine the ratio of shares kept with DTC for operational efficiency on days the tally is performed.” source In order for Computershare to be telling the truth (which I believe they are) about the “small portion” and for 10 million+ shares to be held at DTC, I needed to look more closely at the exact statement made in the Computershare FAQ.

That is what led me to analyze and realize what a “DSPP share” is, and as you know, that’s where my last post came from and what finally connected ALL the dots. Finally, everything was coming together that explained almost everything (for now). So, we’ve got 2 theories. The first theory dubbed the “rug pull theory” was heavily pushed on the community that hedge funds DRS’d their own shares using their own money and then “un-DRS’d” their own shares causing an increase in numbers in Q2 followed by a decrease in Q3. This theory has a few major assumptions. * First, it assumes that hedge funds need to use their own money (instead of yours). Dumb stormtroopers don’t need to use their own money if the alternative is to use your free money.

• Second, for those convinced that the Q3 DRS shortfall was a short hedge fund pump and dump, please note that there is no reason to believe that the current estimates are accurate, i.e., if you believe that bad actors inflated the average in previous quarters, there is no reason to believe that the current averages are still not overstated. No evidence exists for the former nor does evidence exist to disprove the latter. Only firms like BlackRock, Vanguard and maybe State Street have the number of GME shares to affect the DRS count that we observed, but a vast majority of their shares are tied up in ETFs, mutual funds and other funds - and have been since at least September 2021. Outside of these 3 large holders, it would have taken literally dozens of institutions colluding to mess with the DRS numbers.

Is that possible? Sure. Is it likely? Probably not. * Third, the low numbers of a rug pull can only be a one-time or cyclical event. If you make a deposit and withdraw the full amount, you can not move the balance lower again without making a deposit again. Now that time has passed and household investors have 2 DRS disclosures with lower than expected totals, it’s clear that the lower than expected totals were not with a “one time event.” In order to do it again, they’d have to “make another deposit”, and that hasn’t happened (yet). The numbers came in lower than expected twice in a row which means the odds of the rug pull theory being correct are losing or have lost their credibility. If you pull a rug from under a person’s feet, you have to replace the rug again if you want to pull it a second time. The 2nd theory that I named the “heat lamp theory” was relatively unknown. Not only do the “dumb stormtroopers” not need to use their own money, they can suppress these numbers over and over again using household investors’ own money as long as household investors don’t catch on to how they’re doing it.

Unlike the theory above where household investors are helpless to stop the manipulation, the heat lamp theory puts the control back into the household investors hands as long as they can figure out how the abusive short sellers are victimizing Computershare and manipulating the numbers. Spoiler alert, they did. If you were a bad actor, which narrative would you push? The theory where household investors are helpless to stop it, and made to feel powerless, OR the theory where household investors can put an end to it by making one simple change to their Computershare account? ​ https://preview.redd.it/robj1oflffwa1.png?width=499&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=c454751565b88f01532803b6eb024d97fc2a3a37 So, where does that leave household investors now? Where do household investors go from here?

I’ll tell you what. When I spent all my time playing “defense”, defending myself from being attacked in my theories and discussions, it didn’t allow me to prosper and play “offense” and figure things out. If you look at my post history, you’ll see a gap in my post history on GameStop content. It was about 2 or 3 months. I was highly frustrated as I felt like something wasn’t right internally within the community. I was spending all my time asking permission from a handful of people that didn’t fully understand the topics that I was attempting to discuss. I’m sure you know how frustrating that is, because most household investors reading this have been there. When you spend all your time defending your position, it blocks your mind from the ability to expand and prosper. I’m fully convinced that by removing myself (mostly) from the toxic environment I was participating in played a big part in how I was able to fully develop the theory I posted last week. ​ https://preview.redd.it/vet0d8dmffwa1.png?width=531&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=de0063845b00f3576a24cefb98ae5f056c90085a

One quick mention is that getting an answer to the “problem” that my post created has a very simple solution. Unfortunately it is falsely being made to appear complex. Let me repeat that again. The shitstorm that my Breaking New Info post created could easily be resolved in less than a week. If anyone in the community has a direct contact to the source at Computershare that can provide the answers that household investors are looking for, all they need to do is ask the right questions, and/or share the contact with a handful of other household investors (like myself), so that those with time can reach out and get the answers that household investors are so desperately looking for. Below are a handful of simple questions that could easily be asked to “the direct contact” at Computershare. ​ https://preview.redd.it/dlcp0c2qffwa1.png?width=769&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=43927c27367166e38c220591fcf8c8755b4a7484 *

Please keep in mind that these simple questions were just off the top of my head at the time. These questions could be written much more thoroughly. There are a handful of household investors I trust and have consulted that agree with the logic of asking the questions but believe the questions could be optimized much better in order to receive even more complete answers, and to make sure the answers actually answer the questions we mean to ask. One of those investors is [redacted] and his recommendations for the questions can be seen here.

If household investors were losing their mind, and wanting answers to the questions like these above, wouldn’t the simplest and quickest solution be to ask these questions to those who could quickly and easily answer them? This isn’t rocket surgery as they say. Whether those (with the direct contact) understand the questions or not in entirety, I’d be willing to ask them myself and report to you all with real proof (not a trust me bro). I have made several requests for access to “the direct contact,” but unfortunately I was “left on read.” How did the community get to this point? How the hell did the community get so far only to be held back from the goal line with one “small” technicality that has such major implications on DRS disclosure totals?

The truth is that there have been a handful of major roadblocks along the way that GME household investors have overcome obstacles where other communities have fallen short. It’s not a secret that I’m friendly with other stock communities on Reddit and you can check my post history to validate that statement. I call myself a DRS advocate (above all else), and GME is my star quarterback. Spending time in other communities allows me to help other investors whose communities are stuck on level 1, but it also allows me to recognize suppressive tactics as the same strategies are often used in every community on various levels.

Massive Roadblocks (Topics of Discussion that are Highly Suppressed) Level 1 - DRS - AMC, BBBY, and KOSS stuck here Level 2 - book/plan Level 3 - DSPP - GME is currently here and in the process of unsticking itself Level 4 - ? ​ https://preview.redd.it/sn2dqz81gfwa1.png?width=326&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=24a9db395ff75fcc98b00dad7a5ca4d8bf42f9b5 In conclusion, the reason you’d never heard of my Heat Lamp Theory is due to CENSORSHIP. Not only were my baby steps being deleted or suppressed, I was being censored through intimidation.

What can you do about it? What can YOU (as the reader) personally do about it? You can inform yourself how big this problem actually is. I’d recommend that every household investor goes to Reveddit.com and become fully aware of how much they’re personally being censored. Sign up to be notified when your content is removed. Below is a sample from my account. As they say “hedgies hate this one simple trick”. 📷 Now that you’re aware of how big this censorship problem is, what can you do about it? Speak up. Don’t be intimidated. Take a stand like I did. Fight the good fight. Fight for what you know is right.

Don’t ever stop pushing to uncover the truth. I knew even before posting my content that my “Breaking New Info Post” was solid. I’d worked on it for 4 months. I knew it needed an uncensored home. I’d tested a portion of my theory in one community where it was “accidentally deleted” (yes, that’s a thing by the way). It happened on this post just two weeks ago. I spent 4 months on my theory. I couldn’t take the chance of having my post “accidentally deleted”. It turns out I made the right decision. Another household investor eventually reposted my theory with that same community and it was suppressed. You can see his post here which was hidden/deleted and then later reinstated. That’s one method of suppression where someone deletes a post when it first starts taking off and then when it’s reinstated, it will only get a tiny fraction of the momentum that it would have received had it not been locked or deleted in the first place.

Generally speaking, if you repost your content after it’s been censored (either in the same community) or in another community, it won’t do as well as the first attempt because the content is no longer “fresh.” In my opinion, if a household investor believes they have great content that they believe has a high probability of being censored they should first publish their findings to an uncensored community. It is now more clear to me than ever that my posts that really matter (like the post you’re reading) need an uncensored place to host them. Not only will they not be deleted, I’m free to tag, cross post, and screenshot until my heart is content. I’m confident that my posts won’t be deleted “by accident.” I’m confident I won’t be banned for my passion for uncovering the truth. *source