October 16, 2021
Retail traders dislike this rule. It appears to be biased in favor of the players that can continue to trade while retail is locked out for an indefinite time of time, at the apparent whim of an individual.
This rule appears to state that public trading, equities, or markets could be suspended for 'protection' of the public, to \"remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market\", but stopping some parties from trading while others may continue to do so is the opposite. Consider, instead, creating a rule you can enforce (at all, and unilaterally), or perhaps avoid using trite boilerplate to pretend that the rule somehow protects anyone.
We don't seem to have a free market, NOR an open (transparent) market, is what the new retail trader is learning. How about choosing between 'unfettered' and 'fair' - this rule comes across as neither.
Thanks, A Retail Trader.