And there is no proof Melvin cut their losses. There is no way to know for sure. The shorts are still there, whether they're Melvin or anyone else.
As for the proof about cutting losses - no, there's no proof. You can question every single fact you read about this story in the media if you want. The reasons most people have given for why they would lie about it instead of just do it kind of strain credulity for me. There are a lot of conspiracies being spread around with much regard for whether or not they are true instead of whether they could be true.
This was widely reported, and Melvin might not be the big bag holder anymore, but the short interest hasn't subsided. It's actually grown.
The squeeze never happened. The squeeze never happened.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/we-have-some-bad-news-game...
As far as I can tell they started the year with ~12.5B AUM, and have lost ~30% on the year and received a 2.75B cash infusion from Citadel et al, which I assume was at a discount given their position. So my rough estimate is around ~25-35%, given the uncertainty around those numbers.
No, Citadel does not own Melvin Capital. Melvin Capital received an investment from Citadel (the hedge fund, not the market maker) and Point72 this week.
> Robinhood seems to be manipulating the market to make it easier for Melvin Capital to cut their substantial losses.
Melvin already cut its losses this week, as was widely reported. There is no evidence for the counter claims that they're lying, which themselves originate on reddit. In particular: all the widely cited short interest figures on reddit which purport to show this are out of date (usually by weeks), and even if they were true, they would not be proof the short positions weren't closed.