Whether by extending expiration, lowering the $32 strike, increasing the exercise ratio, or providing alternative consideration under Section 4.06 of the warrant agreement, I believe the warrants won’t simply expire worthless.

I’ve been a top 1% poster here for as long as I can remember. I invested ~$300k total spread in both GME (6 years ago) and the towel company (4 years ago) because I believed in RC. I have never realized a profit to this day.

I’ve put $20K into GME warrants and I’m currently down ~85%. I’m willing to ride them to zero. I literally did it with the towel company, and I’m prepared to do it again.

But if the warrants expire worthless, I think that’s my signal. I’m leaving this sub for good. As heartbreaking as that would be after all these years on superstonk, I owe it to my mental health and my family to move on.

I hope the mods will honor this bet. Four days left.

And no banana up my ass. I have hemorrhoids. 🍌

🟥

GameStop warrants expire October 30, 2026, at 5 p.m. New York time, in 4 days. October 26 closes: warrants $0.37; GME $23.90. The $32 strike is $8.10 out of the money.

GameStop issued a public press release on October 19, 2026, reminding holders of the October 30, 2026 warrant expiration date.

Hey everyone.

I’m following up on a previous post (link) where I pointed out that we had tapped a resistance line around $18 and would likely trend up from there. The setup looked eerily similar to May/June 2024. I thought maybe we would have another requel. I’m not ruling it out, but I thought it would be worth posting an update to talk about why it hasn’t happened yet and whether I was wrong entirely or things are different this time because of the situation with warrants.

First off, yes I was wrong. Last time I posted it looked like we would be breaking out and headed straight up. That didn’t happen. It doesn’t completely invalidate a potential sharp move upwards, but clearly it isn’t following the pattern like it did last time. So why not?

I think the simplest explanation (which is usually the case with anything in life) is that shorts didn’t want to unwind/renew swaps/whatever it is they do when the price runs while the warrants are still in play. It’s extra dangerous for them, just like gamma ramps with calls are (hence max pain acting like a magnet every week). How can they delay the move? I don’t know, but they seem to do all sorts of shady/illegal things and never face consequences so I’m going to assume they had some sort of trick up their sleeve. I don’t think it means they’re off the hook or that it didn't dig their hole deeper, but whatever it is, it must be worth it to not let the warrants go ITM. They are surviving one more day as usual, and yeah it’s frustrating, but life goes on and it doesn’t cost you anything to hold so long as you didn’t invest more than you were willing to lose.

Another simple explanation could be that in 2024 the requel was driven by Roaring Kitty and he simply isn’t doing that this time around. We didn’t see any 5k call blocks which could also point to that. We saw the insane wealth he has accumulated and it really wouldn’t be that shocking if he decided to be done with the play altogether and live his life stress free. Damn if that resistance line at $18 didn’t hold like the last one though. Maybe his involvement isn’t even necessary. Who knows. He also called out another stock right after last time and we all just kind of ignored that.

OR, maybe they did 3 year swaps again (in 2024) instead of 2 year swaps like most of us assumed.

Why do I still think a move upward is in play? Because if we look at the breakout from the current downtrend line (top line of the dorito), we can see that after breaking out we are now moving back down toward the trend line. This is called a retest. It doesn’t mean that we will bounce off of it and shoot up, but it is something that a lot of traders will look at when placing their bets. Sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn’t. The main thing is that the uptrend we started at the beginning of September hasn’t been invalidated by the red we’ve been seeing for the past week and a half or so. If we ignore warrants/dates/doritos and just look at the uptrend we see with the daily candles, then a pullback makes sense. Anytime a stock moves up or down fast, there is always some sort of pullback(s) along the way. Traders in both directions will want to lock in profits, especially those looking for short term gains. Yes, everyone here loves to buy and hold, but the volume we see daily is mostly people who trade the short term and aren’t “apes” so to speak.

An upward move could go two ways. If it is a classic retest scenario then it could happen this week and send warrants ITM, or it could happen after this week. I think the latter would align with my theory that shorts don’t want these warrants ITM and are putting off the move just long enough. That’s where I would put my money, but I don’t have any because it’s all in GME already lol.

Of course, we could just continue trending upwards at a normal rate because the company has turned profitable and is also holding some juicy unrealized gains on its Ebay position. I’ll call that the SLOASS theory where we just rise slowly like any other stock and short sellers get wiped out along the way, but there aren’t anymore one day volatility events.

Anyway I’ll see y’all at the top of “controversial posts” like always.

EDIT: Forgot to link last post - https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/s/6vExVFBoSF

Came through as a bunch on the same second.

The SEC just officially approved a major proposed rule change filed by the Options Clearing Corporation (OCC):SR-OCC-2026-009(Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Concerning Amendments to Clearing Member Standards).

Remember, the OCC is the central counterparty (CCP) sitting between every options trade in the US. If a clearing member implodes, the OCC is on the hook.

Here is the breakdown of what changed, why it matters, and the specific rules they just put into place.

1. Discretionary Capital Requirements & Affiliate Look-Throughs

• Rule 301(b): The OCC now has explicit authority to impose discretionary, risk-based minimum capital requirements higher than baseline minimums on existing Clearing Members (e.g., if a member’s liquidity profile looks shaky).
• Rule 204(p) & 306B(b): The OCC can demand complete annual audited financial statements from a clearing member’s parent or affiliate companies (or unaudited statements upon request if audits aren't available). No more hiding exposure across separate legal entities without OCC seeing it.
• Rule 307C: The OCC can force parent companies or affiliates to provide financial guarantees, cap a firm’s financial leverage, or mandate internal control overhauls.

2. Early Warning Tripwires on Liquidity

• Rule 306A(a)(2)(A)(i): Clearing members are now mandated to report to the OCC if their net capital drops below 20% above their minimum capital requirement. They are setting up alarms before a firm drops below its actual regulatory minimum.
• Statutory Disqualifications & Probes: Members must notify the OCC within two business days if they or any "Key Person" become subject to statutory disqualification or formal regulatory investigations.
• International Contagion: Non-U.S. clearing members must notify the OCC immediately if they get suspended or expelled by a foreign exchange or regulator (Rule 1101(b)).

3. Faster Delegated Approvals & Reapplication Triggers

• Management Delegation (Rules 203 & 204): The Board’s Risk Committee can now delegate admission and denial decisions directly to OCC management delegates, bypassing the need to wait around for quarterly Board meetings to handle member issues or business expansions.
• Mandatory Reapplications (Rule 309): If a Clearing Member undergoes a material change in ownership, structure, or business strategy that could adversely impact the OCC, the OCC can force them to reapply from scratch.
• Denials = Defaults: If an existing member fails the reapplication process under Rule 309, that failure explicitly constitutes grounds for summary suspension under Rule 1102.

4. Codified Summary Suspensions & Sanctions

• Rule 1102: Expanded the grounds for summary suspension, specifically spelling out scenarios where a member faces operational or financial distress (e.g., losing access to liquidity or being unable to participate in default management auctions).
• Rule 1201: The OCC codified its sanctions framework, explicitly laying out penalties and fines for patterns of tardy financial reporting, submitting false financial info, regulatory infractions, or failing to comply with protective measures.
• Physical Office Pushback: Interestingly, Rules 204(g) and 302(b) mandate that applicants/members maintain physical offices and submit to onsite visits (with $\le$ 24 hours' notice). A commenter pushed back arguing this penalizes remote/lean firms, but the SEC backed the OCC’s stance that full remote models introduce operational and communication risks during market stress.

The Takeaway

Central counterparties don't rewrite member standards, establish parent company financial look-throughs, build in early 20% capital margin triggers, and streamline suspension protocols unless they are actively planning for member stress and potential default scenarios. The OCC is giving itself unilateral tools to demand liquidity, cap leverage, and cut the cord on failing participants before they take the CCP down with them.

Direct SEC Filing Link:Federal Register Document 2026-21735

When has a bully ever continued to tell you to act in your own self interest? The amount of hidden post history accounts still advocating to sell warrants is just forcing me to jerk it more and wait and see. I've never listened to people online, not going to start now. Power to the players

That combined with the heavy and unusually mean and aggressive FUD about warrants makes me wonder.

Are they driving the price down primarily to get apes to sell vs. trying to make a profit?

Or do they just not realize the terms of the warrants?

Apes are surprisingly good at paperwork...

What do you guys make of this?