Oct. 16, 2021
Dear Sir/Madam, The proposed rule change is the opposite of free market and the justification for such a rule change is not evidenced coherently within the proposition. The idea of shutting down a "lit" exchange at the will of a small number of people based on a vague description of "public interest" is not only dangerous and open to corruption, but it achieves the exact opposite effect of supporting a free market. As you're aware, retail investors operate on the lit exchanges, shutting down that exchange would not hinder off exchange trading of NYSE listed securities, something which most retail traders do not have access to. As a result, such a shut down would effect retail more than anyone, arguably at a time when it is coming to light that the retail trader is far more disadvantaged than it was previously thought. You cannot impose such a rule without acknowledging that its implication for retail is not to 'support a free market', but to support 'the right free market' by which I mean the entities that support your operations, not retail, even though retails taxes are supposed to help the SEC establish a fair playing field in the market. This rule grants the SEC/NYSE the right to shut retail out of trading, likely at a volatile time, whilst simultaneously allowing large entities to continue trading NYSE listed securities off exchange. The result potentially being retail unable to close/open positions, whilst watching the price of their chosen security experience a high amount of volatility. If I've misunderstood the rule change, please explain how this supports a fair market? Thanks, A retail investor.