“Nothing to see here.”
Great post @ODB123...i looked for the official SEC and DTCC regulatory rule filing databases but neither currently have provided a detailed public notice or summary for this specific rule number as of May 1, 2025. Do you have any direct links?
Reading the DTCC announcement, dated April 30, 2025:
DTCC's FICC seems to have quietly filed "SR-FICC-2025-013". This may look like a harmless little tweak letting Inter-Dealer Brokers use the same Deposit ID across both Broker and Dealer accounts.
Translation?
One ID to rule them all. One ID to blur audit trails, muddy accountability, and potentially net across functions that should remain distinct under basic risk controls.
In a post- $GME, post- $MMTLP world, shouldn’t we be doing the opposite, separating, not merging identifiers that trace fund flows?
Why now?
Why this change?
Where’s the risk disclosure?
If you're wondering how systemic risk creeps in, it’s not always a flash crash, it’s buried in footnotes, wrapped in regulatory jargon, and filed under “Service Updates”...
@SECGov : Are you watching?
#FICC #DTCC #MarketStructure #Transparency #AuditTrail
Not All “Service Updates” Are Created Equal
When DTCC labels a structural rule change as a “Service Update,” it’s worth asking, what exactly are they updating?
Let’s compare:
When most people hear the phrase “Service Update,” they think of harmless, routine changes, like
- upgrading an FTP server to support a new encryption protocol;
- revising a holiday schedule for Juneteenth,
- renaming a settlement file for internal consistency, - refreshing the user interface of a member dashboard, etc.
These are the true service updates: operational, technical, and non-controversial.
They don’t change how the financial system functions or how risk is managed, and they certainly don’t require SEC rule filings.
🚨 A “Service Update” Should Not Alter Market Plumbing...
By contrast, SR-FICC-2025-013 is not a service update in spirit, even if it’s framed like one.
- It authorizes a structural change by allowing Inter-Dealer Brokers to use a single Deposit ID across both their Dealer and Broker accounts.
- This move blurs regulatory boundaries, weakens audit trail integrity, and opens the door to synthetic netting between roles that are supposed to remain distinct.
- And while it has been filed as a formal rule change with the SEC, rightfully so, it’s being messaged as something purely operational.
That labeling is misleading.
…you’re not performing back-offer maintenance. You’re replumbing the market system. This is a foundational shift and it deserves far more scrutiny.
So let’s call this what it is...a regulatory rule change masquerading as a back-office tweak.
@RepRalphNorman You pick and choose what to be outraged about @RepRalphNorman. Selective outrage: that's what spineless cowards do, Ralphie.
868 days of the #MMTLP trade halt. YOU turned your back on veterans and disabled veterans.
What's the share count of $MMTLP?
#MMTLP 866 DAYS since the US Govt stole $64 million dollars from my family. Shares just under $1000 were listed for sale on TD Ameritrade & FINRA U3 halt because they all would have executed since pre market sales were immediately $4300 & more. Restitution for 65K @ $2300 share!
Is it just a little ironic that when FINRA hijacked the $MMTLP Corporate Actions, they communicated false and misleading information to millions of its customers just like Robin Hood!? @DOGE_SEC@FBIDDBongino
FINRA never disclosed that it couldn’t track foreign-held shares , until MMTLP blew up.
For 16 years they said nothing. Established in 2007. tasked with regulation.🤣😂
Now, after halting trading, freezing retail, and letting fraud run wild, they play dumb?
This isn’t failure. It’s complicity. $mmtlp
I am still waiting on public political admission that this is a regulatory debacle.
You've probably been told that Market Maker codes aren't real! But when you observe the final minutes that $MMTLP traded, you see clear signals indicating that the Market Makers were out of shares.
They would've had to pay whatever price the holder asked.
What happened before the next trading day could begin on 12/9/22?
FINRA U3 halted trading to protect investors from opening NEW POSITIONS, the very thing that BOTH MMTLP Corporate Actions instructed the brokerages to NOT allow!
The evidence continued to pile on! @DOGE_SEC@FBIDDBongino
Shocked—but not surprised—to see some Congressional Representatives posting ‘He is Risen’ on Easter, while selling out their morals and ethics by refusing to confront proven corruption. $MMTLP has uncovered widespread collusion, yet a narrative persists to shield the guilty. When does real accountability and transparency for retail investors begin? It starts with audited share counts—to expose overages and restore trust. Hopefully @DOGE@DOGE_SEC@elonmusk@realDonaldTrump@vp@AGTennessee@RepOgles@MarshaBlackburn@RepJohnRose can start some real change.
Was the modified December 8 $MMTLP Corporate Action also reviewed in accordance with FINRA's Rule 6490?
How could it have been if FINRA still missed the issue related to settlement and clearance??? @FBI@DOJCrimDiv
Have you read Robert W. Cook's response to Rep Ralph Norman and the 70+ other members of Congress?
If FINRA reviewed the submission in accordance with the guidelines of Rule 6490, why would there be a need to modify the Corporate Action on December 8th???
"As was required under SEC Rule 10b-17 for issuers with a class of publicly traded securities,
Meta Materials notified FINRA of its intention to undertake the Next Bridge/MMTLP corporate action. -->Following FINRA's review under Rule 6490<--, FINRA published a notice on the'Daily List on December 6, 2022 (modified on December 8)..."
It's because FINRA defied their Rule 6490 and forced Metamaterials to accept the Corporate Action created by FINRA. A Corporate Action that introduced a perceived settlement issue by introducing a date and time (the zero hour of December 13) never before mentioned by the issuer. @DOGE_SEC $MMTLP
#MMTLP has a verified source that there is a naked short that is over by 110 million shares. "It is credible and verified." Made public on their weekly Spaces calls on X ...Could naked shorting in the entire market abruptly end? The SEC said MMTLP was only 2.6 million ....lol
It's been > 90 days since the $MMTLP situation unfolded and there still hasn't been a statement issued by @FINRA. These investors are stuck, and feel abandoned by those supposed to protect them. @FINRA should at least come out with an explanation and the data. People are hurting.
I've heard a few people say "It's over"... But yet it's not because
- $MMTLP is in a chill per @The_DTCC
- @TradeStation and many other brokers have oversold counterfeit liabilities that need to be reconciled.
- @Finra issued a rare U3 halt of a settlement process that still needs a market based reconciliation of oversold counterfeit shares to ultimately settle this.
- Again all of this can be over with @SECGov sharing the audited share counts to prove who is ultimately right to @DOGE_SEC@FinancialCmte@SenateFinance or many others.
Sorry but this is not over until there is a reconciliation of oversold counterfeit shares.
Unlimited Risk is a bitch. #FUPayMe
This is how a little man fights a giant;
cowardly lion.
You don't respond to my post that has receipts and refuting them. You go make your own thread and yell, "LOOK! LOOK!" Nowhere in this press release does it say that it will stop trading on the 8th. EVEN IF IT DID, why did they halt it on the 9th?
Ahhh because the tape on the morning of the 9th showed that it indeed was trading like all major broker/dealers had communicated to their clients.
No, Charlie. You can't outrun the truth. Nobody believes you because you've nuked so much of your credibility pivoting around the facts in the name of damage control.
You are the epitome of a disingenuous prick; and yes, 5'8" is short. Sad balding twerp, Shrek for a wife, ha!
Stugots!
Gasperino is just trying to convince Congress and his paid bot followers that trading was to end on 8th.
But @FINRA and the $MMTLP both state trading would occur until the end of 12th.
You just wouldn't qualify for Nextbridge if purchased after 8th.
@RepEliCrane@FoxBusiness