So, long story short I decided to get a sleeve tattoo. I have always wanted one and knew the kind of thing I wanted, never got round to following through. I went a bit manic and decided I wanted it now. Found the perfect inspiration pic that I adored and I was set. I asked around for tattooist good with that sort of style (mandalas) and got a recommendation from my sister that had one done on her ribs. I spoke to the artist, looked at her portfolio and was happy. We booked in for two weeks later, she drew up a design with the basic idea kept and we were good to go.
Here's the issue. I'm not fond of dot work, and really didn't want anything too heavy. My inspiration pic had a very open line work mandala and the stencil was also detailed with line work but not too heavy. When I got to the studio, me and the artist had a long discussion about the shading and what I wanted, how I didn't like dot work and didn't want a lot of shading and she was down with that. She asked if she could do a little as most have them and convinced me, so I said it would be fine in very small amounts, as long as we confirm as we go. She did the sleeve in sort of two parts, saying we'd do the bits connecting it all next session and I didn't notice the red flag.
She tattooed the stencil on, it looked fine and just needed the details. As we'd done the lower arm that day too I went away and came back for the next session. I told her again that I liked the design and was looking forward to putting the line work in. Now, I couldn't see my arm clearly because of its position but I felt a fair amount of shading I wasn't expecting, I checked in my awkward anxious way by saying how I liked that the design was very open and not too heavy to see what she said and she replied that she was keeping lots of space it looked good so I stupidly felt reassured that it was just light shading around it and put it out my mind. Later I feel dot work, I mentioned that it felt a lot like dot work and she said just touching up the bigger lines from last time (may have been true for that exact moment I don't know). Fast forward, she finishes, I look at it and Fuck my life its all dot work.... no line work, the stencil I agreed is non existent. She's basically done all detail in dot work and to make it worse, put a pattern in one of the only non shaded petals so its not even symmetrical. Now I have anxiety and find it hard to speak up so just kinda left and when she asked about booking in over text just smiled and said yeah awkwardly.
I found the best artist near me, not his style but he's renowned for being the best around. I wanted advice so popped in and asked him what I do. He's said she's basically taken all the options to fix it away. It's all dot work, in black ink, and that's kinda that. Bad lining he could've straightened up by thickening lines but she's filled the space. He said he can try and neaten it and finish the sleeve with bits that distract from it but ultimately it will be a heavy sleeve. I basically think it's fucked... and it's huge. I am gutted.
I don't even think laser removal would work on the dot work without fucking up the whole arm piece and I currently only have a 1000 left after paying her so I don't know how much money I have to fix it straight away. Do I just focus on making the upper arm look better or try to connect the two stencils first? I'm stuck and keep crying everytime I catch my arm in the mirror.

Servus Werte Affen des deutschen GameStop Unters. Was für eine verrückte Woche. Ich habe mich ein bisschen mit den DRS zahlen beschäftigt und bin mir ziemliche sicher wir haben wesentlich mehr als 75 millionen aktien DRSt. Habe aber leider nicht genug Karma um in Superstonk zu posten. Entschuldigt daher bitte den angelsächsischen Pfosten. Falls gewünscht kann ich noch eine Zusammenfassung auf Deutsch schreiben. Ich wäre euch sehr verbunden wenn ihr diesen Post dem englischen Unter zuspielen könntet.
Introduction
In this post I perform an analysis of DRS numbers with the result that the true DRS numbers might be much higher than 75 million. I discuss the implications of this finding to address recent uncertainty around the recent share offering by GameStop.
TADR: Shills try to anchor DRS numbers => We might have already locked the float => RC knows we did => RC has proof of a short scheme => Dilution does not matter => Hedgies are fucked
Currently negative sentiment in all GameStop subs is based on the following 3 points:
1. “Ryan Cohen betrayed our trust; Ryan Cohen killed the momentum.” Which momentum? The stock goes up like many times before. This is not a squeeze. No one is getting margin called, I don’t see any phone numbers. RK’s stream showed that in the range of 30-60$ they are very much able to drop the price any time they want.
2. “GameStop/Ryan Cohen have no plan and have done nothing in the past 3 years.” We simply have to be patient before we can draw a conclusion on this point. But let’s revisit the 2023 annual report on page 4 “Business strategy”: Achieve Profitability in fiscal 2023 and streamlining the business. The company achieved profitability and although revenue went down in 2024 so far, percentage wise spending goes down faster. All according to plan. Since the goals for 2023 were achieved and more cash was raised, the chances of GameStop announcing new plans and pivoting towards a growth strategy are high in my opinion. However, note that in last year’s shareholder meeting nothing with regard to the strategy was mentioned.
3. “The share offering is diluting and undoing DRS progress and making it impossible for us to ever achieve the goal of locking the float. DRS is dead”. If you believe that shorts have not closed, dilution is not a big factor compared to the dilution from naked short selling.
So, what about DRS?
Why do all the negative posters point out we “only” DRSed 75 million shares and that it will be “impossible” to DRS the float? Let us reiterate what we know about DRS:
1. The last official and reliable DRS numbers are from April 2022 (recall the DRS Rugpulls in the following 2 quarters and the following stagnation ever since).
2. GameStop changed the official communication multiple times after October 2022, obfuscating the true DRS number, likely because of external pressure. They went from reporting the accurate CS number to an approximate based on DTCC reported numbers (304 million outstanding shares – 206 million DTCC reported shares = 75 million).
3. However in March 2023 Gamestop gave us one new datapoint: the number of record holders which was 197058.
4. GameStop and Computershare know the true DRS numbers.
5. To my knowledge there is no proof that locking the float will cause MOASS. It has always been the goal but we simply don't know what happens.
6. We need to BOOK shares at Computershare, otherwise there are still ways to mess with our shares.
7. We know that DRS takes away liquidity (falling volume over the years) and hurts the shorts. Every time shill attacks occur, they target DRS. For example, they tried to spread FUD during the move to book our shares which was obviously good for retail investors once we learned about it.
I believe that the current shill strategy is to demoralize by anchoring 75 million as the default DRS number and that it is not moving up at all. Conveniently the latest share offering is also 75 million shares. Surely DRS must be dead if we make no progress right?
But what if the true DRS numbers are much higher? The number being stuck just does not make sense, many fellow apes, including me, are still buying and DRSing, which implies that there must be an equally large amount of people selling DRSed shares. And you are telling me that for more than 2 year there has been almost perfect balance between buy and sell side on CS? Talk about trading sideways…
Especially puzzling is that the DRS numbers on computershared, which have been very accurate initially, have still gone up before a short time later the reddit API was shut down and the DRS bot stopped working. Very convenient that we lost the ability to estimate DRS ownership around the same time the numbers began to be obfuscated.
Method
Just focusing on the DRS numbers for prediction is not very precise. Additionally, we cannot really trust the numbers reported after April 2022 so we don't have many datapoints. Instead, I propose to look at the amount of money apes spend on DRSing shares and extrapolate that. It is a number with much more meaning to the individual investor, subject to less noise and tied to the true stock price we can observe. The method works as follows:
1. Compute how much the average CS account owner spent per quarter on GameStop Shares based on the past reliable DRS numbers. (based on facts)
2. Extrapolate the average spend for quarters in which DRS numbers stagnated. (approximation)
3. Use the official number of record holders and the true stock price to predict growth in DRS numbers. (based on facts)
In doing so we are making the least amount of assumptions by using official numbers whenever we can: the official number of record holders, the stock price and the DRS numbers from computershared when they matched the official numbers.
Figure 1 - DRS extrapolation. Red: share price, Green: DRS number, Orange: Number of CS accounts, Purple: Average quarterly spend on DRS
In Figure 1 I plotted in red the share price from before the sneeze in 2021 until Friday 7.6.2024 (6/7/2024 for the US apes). The green and orange lines show the DRS estimate and number of CS accounts from computershared(dot)net. In purple I plotted the amount of $ spent per CS account that had to occur to achieve the increase of the green DRS numbers in the preceding quarter based on the average price during that period.
Analysys
We can see that in the initial DRS period apes spent on average $20k on DRSing shares. This number is likely inflated because people did not just DRS new shares but also shares accumulated since the sneeze in 2021. But for the following quarter we can see that money spent to DRS new shares was around $5000 in March 2022 decreasing to $1800 in March 2023. This comes down to the OG apes spending about 600$ per month to DRS the float. Pretty reasonable number imo. The decrease of spending over time is just natural as engagement with the stock decreased during a long period of the price slowly going down. Actually, the decay of spending matches exactly the decrease in activity of the Superstonk sub:
Figure 2
BUT the price decreasing at the same time with a similar decay pattern has interesting effects. Even when the average spend on DRSing goes down, the net number of shares that were locked away might have increased linearly.
In Figure 1 in light purple I show my extrapolation of the average quarterly spending. I assumed a decrease in the willingness to spend of 10% every quarter, going down to an average quarterly spending of $1000 as of today. At the same time, I assumed no new apes DRSing and modelled apes going inactive by decreasing the net amount of CS accounts by 5% per quarter. Hence the dashed orange line is trending lower since the last official number we got. The numbers give us predictions that follow the trendline from the purple slowly decreasing true average quarterly spending.
Now on to the final observation. Even with conservative estimates of no new apes coming in, existing apes going inactive and the interest in DRS decreasing during the period from March 2023 to now, we have most likely DRSed almost the entire float of 153 million Shares (shown by the light green dashed line) or we are at least significantly above 100 million. Interestingly we were likely close to locking the entire float this May, right when volume increased, the price skyrocketed, DFV returned, and GameStop issued more shares.
Limitations
We cannot really model the selling pressure from apes selling DRS shares, but it is quite likely that the buying pressure was higher than my conservative prediction and that new apes started DRSing.
This method assumes that the stagnation in reported DRS numbers starting 2023 is not accurate.
This method extrapolates the average quarterly spend and the number of CS accounts.
The method is based on the DRS estimates from computershared during the time they matched the officially reported DRS numbers.
There are simplifications like averaging price over a quarter and not taking into account volume.
Discussion
In a free and transparent market, the price of a stock is determined by supply and demand. DRS is reducing the Supply of shares and creates a baseline of demand. Assuming we reduced the supply to a small fraction of the outstanding shares, the price should rise. But we know that the price went down during the entire time we DRSed shares. This implies that there is either no demand at all or heavy dilution from short selling counteracting the DRS movement.
And RC proved that there is in fact high demand, leaving only short selling on the table. In May 2024 the company heavily increased the number of outstanding shares with the 45 million share offering (potentially up to120 million). According to the supply and demand model, the price should decrease. But oh wait, the price has tripled during that time on no news or fundamental changes (GameStop even says this in one of their latest filings). RK shows on stream he is just a goofball, has not yet exercised his calls and that the price can be manipulated at a whim. This means there is demand not tied to RK or business fundamentals that far surpasses the 45 (or 120) million new shares offered and that the price is most likely manipulated by short selling.
What is RC’s perspective?
He would know the true DRS numbers and if we really locked the float in the last 3 years, he would have proof of a short selling scheme against the company following the above simple logical argument. With this proof this would allow him to raise billions in cash for the company without compromising MOASS because further dilution is dwarfed by the amount of naked shares which must exist to explain the recent insane volume on no shares available. Furthermore, the share offering raises the minimum price per share to $10-$12, completely killing the short thesis. Overall the DRS numbers are important for exposing and combating the rampant short selling by reducing supply of shares.
Finally, to show how ridiculous the stagnant 75 million DRS number is:
Figure 3
The number of active CS accounts would need to decrease 25% every quarter and the average monthly spending on DRS to go down 50% every quarter to 50$ per quarter for the remaining accounts to achieve such a stagnation.