![NateHindenburg's tweet photo. Problems With Ed Dorsey
This morning, I saw that a blog by Ed Dorsey falsely and ridiculously alleged we plagiarized from him. To be clear, I don’t read this blog, and have never in any way used or relied on his work in our own.
Hindenburg Research regularly cites hundreds of sources to make sure our readers know the sources and evidence from which we derive our conclusions, and so that readers can independently replicate our work.
For example, our more than 16,000 word, 75-page report on Roblox that we published last week included more than 300 citations.
To specifically address the blog post’s claims this morning, by company:
(1) Roblox – Edwin falsely alleged we took a chronological list of pedophile cases involving Roblox from him, for our own report, which we published days later. We have proof that we put this list together before Edwin ever published his, completely debunking his nonsensical claim.
We didn’t read or rely on Edwin’s piece at all, as can easily be seen by evidence already explained and shown to Edwin, that he has willfully ignored.
As I wrote to Edwin Friday, when he first raised these concerns, the criminal cases were referenced in a Bloomberg article in July, which we cited. That section of our report was drafted over a month before Edwin published his list. It was incorporated into our video compilation weeks before as well. We also included original source documents in our report (indictments and arrest records), which were not included in Edwin’s superficial analysis.
For some of those records, we hired runners to send to courthouses around the country to get in-person. This obviously didn't happen overnight. And our public SlideShare with those source documents shows upload dates prior to Edwin’s report. (See attached photo for example.)
In short, Edwin apparently Googled some of the same stuff we did and created a similar list ordered in a chronological fashion. Note that this half of a page of background information explaining Roblox’s well documented public history of scandal was on page 38 of our 75-page, 16,000-word report.
One could easily be forgiven had Edwin seen a similar-looking list, and rushed to judgement without clicking through the evidence to see that we had obviously developed it independently and went deeper than him. But most insidiously, this was all explained to Edwin both when I wrote to him and spoke with him on Friday. He could easily see the evidence for himself in front of him. He acknowledged this when we spoke, but instead, decided to ignore it and shamelessly lob false allegations of plagiarism anyway.
Our report also referenced Roblox’s child grooming chat rooms, which we had learned about from YouTuber Rubin Sim, cited in our report, who has done extensive work on Roblox for nearly a decade. Sim found these chat rooms as early as December 2022:
https://t.co/gY0xTDeBeq
We identified dozens of examples of these chats in our report, and included them in our video compilation. Again, all of this clearly didn’t happen overnight.
Edwin said he had flagged this issue in one of his reports days earlier with “virtually identical” (i.e., different) examples. In our conversation last week, Edwin acknowledged that he had seen Sim’s work and that it had served as the foundation for his finding on child grooming chat groups.
But today, Edwin now absurdly (and ironically) claims that this was HIS finding, and that we plagiarized it from him. He in fact also learned about it from Sim, but has now decided to take credit for the finding himself.
This seems to be a pattern. While Edwin craves recognition for the work we didn’t use, he has failed to acknowledge that major media outlets as far back as 2020 have repeatedly flagged issues of inappropriate content and pedophilia on Roblox. Contrary to his view, he did not “crack” the story—he seems to have largely Googled some things and borrowed heavily from those other works.
As with every piece we publish, our Roblox report included citations to those media sources and the sources we actually used, over 300 citations in total, along with our extensive original findings.
The implication by Edwin that his report is somehow the same or similar to ours is just odd. Most of our 75-page report was a breakdown of KPIs – an angle that no one anywhere in the investing world has published on - and expansive illicit and pedophile content that clearly was independently developed by our team over months with nothing to do with Edwin’s claims today.
Core to Edwin's grievance, as he complained to me over the phone, is that despite him publishing some work on Roblox, our report got more attention than his. This frustrated him. Rather than acknowledge that we did deeper work that covered more issues, he decided to try to turn our work into an engagement opportunity for him by lobbing groundless public allegations at us.
(2) Lifestance - During my call with Ed last week, he also complained that he was “annoyed” that we had published on LifeStance after him, although he acknowledged that there was nothing similar about the content requiring a citation, and that we had merely written about the same company with different perspectives.
Our on the ground due diligence for Lifestance was organic and detailed. Again, it had nothing to do with Edwin’s findings, as he himself acknowledged to me via phone last week. But that didn’t stop him from alleging that we plagiarized him by merely publishing research on a company he also happened to write about.
Furthermore, Edwin acknowledges he wrote about billing at LifeStance, while our report mainly addressed clinician turnover issues. He summed up his report with this claim: "After reviewing the evidence, [the blog] is left wondering whether LifeStance is a thriving therapy franchise or an illegal billing operation with therapy on the side."
His claim was based on online consumer complaints. We actually looked deeply at billing, among other issues, but after 22 independent interviews, we concluded it was a mess, but not tantamount to fraud.
(3) Axos Financial - For Axos, Edwin took exception with the fact that our report quoted the company's own description from its own website. Yes—he alleges that the company description from the company’s website was plagiarized from HIM.
The content of our report, including our on the ground research and 21 interviews, was entirely organic. Even Edwin admits this, stating: "Hindenburg’s 9,505-word Axos report has some commonality with [the blog], largely focuses on different sub-issues, and does not mention [the blog] once."
Again, this is because we, in no way, relied on his work.
(4) Freedom Holdings – Again, Edwin takes exception with the fact that we merely published on a name he also published on. Our report, undertaken over the course of a year, was more than 17,000 words with 357 citations, including an independent review of extensive international corporate and regulatory records, interviews with former employees and industry analysis.
--
The size and scale of our reports are consistently larger than Edwin’s blog, and the notion that because in a handful of instances we both sourced the same publicly available information, leading to similarities in a couple dozen words in our reports, we owe a citation to him, is silly.
Overall, rather than follow the evidence, Edwin has decided to take the approach of lobbing absurd allegations to farm for engagement, which sort of cuts to the heart of the matter.
The reason we don’t use Edwin’s work is because of the few reports I’d read early on, I didn’t find them useful. We didn’t think spending 30 minutes Googling a company, checking PACER, then slapping together a couple complaints from BBB qualifies as thorough research.
Inevitably, if one puts out a brief report on a new company every week, there may be some overlap. Readers of Hindenburg recognize there is a difference in depth, content, and quality. Rather than try to improve on the quality of his work, or acknowledge the sources he gets his ideas from, Edwin has instead chosen to try to attack ours with slipshod claims that our work is somehow similar or taken from his.
The irony here is palpable: Edwin is mad at us for publishing independent research on names that he wrote about…after other outlets (like Rolling Stone, Fast, or MailOnline, in Roblox’s case) also wrote about them.
Hindenburg Research does not consider any company out-of-bounds, including companies that have been the subject of prior critical articles or reports. This is particularly true when our research turns up new issues or goes far deeper into previously covered issues by drawing on interviews, unreported documents, and proprietary data analysis.
It’s a shame that Edwin has chosen to attack us rather than engage with the issues, but nonetheless we wish him the best in the future and hope he gets the attention he’s obviously looking for.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GZ8IUW1XIAAoBTh.png)
Olivia
Online
Jonathan Hill
@JonathanHill___
Financial Analyst
Kansas City, MO
Joined August 2016
219 Following
282 Followers
918 Posts
President Trump on Israel and Iran: "We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing."
🚨🧵 EXPOSED: “INFLUENCEABLE” — The company cutting Big Checks to “influencers” on behalf of Big Soda
Over the past 48 hours, several large supposedly MAGA-aligned “influencers” posted almost identical talking points fed to them, convincing you MAHA was out of line for not wanting soda purchases with food stamps (SNAP)
Some even slimely invoked PRESIDENT TRUMP as an emotional manipulation tactic, referring to his Diet Coke button.
Not a SINGLE ONE of them disclosed they were paid for these posts, which led readers to believe a general SODA BAN was in the works.
2028. We’re pullin up with that nina.
This is a must-watch.
Rand Paul just WENT OFF at RFK Jr.'s hearing.
A Personal Note From Our Founder
https://t.co/OOMtimC0gV
this how i be scanning for the next 5x
Lawsuit filed today against Clippers by Kawhi Leonard’s personal trainer that includes allegations of tampering years prior to signing the star.
Thread:
Are the AE 1 the best shoes in the game?
Believe That.
We are short $HSY . High Levels of Banned PFAS Detected in Hershey's (NYSE: $HSY ) Packaging. Independent Tests Reveal Widespread Presence of Cancer-Linked “Forever Chemicals” in its Biggest Brands. Read our new report here: https://t.co/P3gC4Tkvyt
Problems With Ed Dorsey
This morning, I saw that a blog by Ed Dorsey falsely and ridiculously alleged we plagiarized from him. To be clear, I don’t read this blog, and have never in any way used or relied on his work in our own.
Hindenburg Research regularly cites hundreds of sources to make sure our readers know the sources and evidence from which we derive our conclusions, and so that readers can independently replicate our work.
For example, our more than 16,000 word, 75-page report on Roblox that we published last week included more than 300 citations.
To specifically address the blog post’s claims this morning, by company:
(1) Roblox – Edwin falsely alleged we took a chronological list of pedophile cases involving Roblox from him, for our own report, which we published days later. We have proof that we put this list together before Edwin ever published his, completely debunking his nonsensical claim.
We didn’t read or rely on Edwin’s piece at all, as can easily be seen by evidence already explained and shown to Edwin, that he has willfully ignored.
As I wrote to Edwin Friday, when he first raised these concerns, the criminal cases were referenced in a Bloomberg article in July, which we cited. That section of our report was drafted over a month before Edwin published his list. It was incorporated into our video compilation weeks before as well. We also included original source documents in our report (indictments and arrest records), which were not included in Edwin’s superficial analysis.
For some of those records, we hired runners to send to courthouses around the country to get in-person. This obviously didn't happen overnight. And our public SlideShare with those source documents shows upload dates prior to Edwin’s report. (See attached photo for example.)
In short, Edwin apparently Googled some of the same stuff we did and created a similar list ordered in a chronological fashion. Note that this half of a page of background information explaining Roblox’s well documented public history of scandal was on page 38 of our 75-page, 16,000-word report.
One could easily be forgiven had Edwin seen a similar-looking list, and rushed to judgement without clicking through the evidence to see that we had obviously developed it independently and went deeper than him. But most insidiously, this was all explained to Edwin both when I wrote to him and spoke with him on Friday. He could easily see the evidence for himself in front of him. He acknowledged this when we spoke, but instead, decided to ignore it and shamelessly lob false allegations of plagiarism anyway.
Our report also referenced Roblox’s child grooming chat rooms, which we had learned about from YouTuber Rubin Sim, cited in our report, who has done extensive work on Roblox for nearly a decade. Sim found these chat rooms as early as December 2022:
https://t.co/gY0xTDeBeq
We identified dozens of examples of these chats in our report, and included them in our video compilation. Again, all of this clearly didn’t happen overnight.
Edwin said he had flagged this issue in one of his reports days earlier with “virtually identical” (i.e., different) examples. In our conversation last week, Edwin acknowledged that he had seen Sim’s work and that it had served as the foundation for his finding on child grooming chat groups.
But today, Edwin now absurdly (and ironically) claims that this was HIS finding, and that we plagiarized it from him. He in fact also learned about it from Sim, but has now decided to take credit for the finding himself.
This seems to be a pattern. While Edwin craves recognition for the work we didn’t use, he has failed to acknowledge that major media outlets as far back as 2020 have repeatedly flagged issues of inappropriate content and pedophilia on Roblox. Contrary to his view, he did not “crack” the story—he seems to have largely Googled some things and borrowed heavily from those other works.
As with every piece we publish, our Roblox report included citations to those media sources and the sources we actually used, over 300 citations in total, along with our extensive original findings.
The implication by Edwin that his report is somehow the same or similar to ours is just odd. Most of our 75-page report was a breakdown of KPIs – an angle that no one anywhere in the investing world has published on - and expansive illicit and pedophile content that clearly was independently developed by our team over months with nothing to do with Edwin’s claims today.
Core to Edwin's grievance, as he complained to me over the phone, is that despite him publishing some work on Roblox, our report got more attention than his. This frustrated him. Rather than acknowledge that we did deeper work that covered more issues, he decided to try to turn our work into an engagement opportunity for him by lobbing groundless public allegations at us.
(2) Lifestance - During my call with Ed last week, he also complained that he was “annoyed” that we had published on LifeStance after him, although he acknowledged that there was nothing similar about the content requiring a citation, and that we had merely written about the same company with different perspectives.
Our on the ground due diligence for Lifestance was organic and detailed. Again, it had nothing to do with Edwin’s findings, as he himself acknowledged to me via phone last week. But that didn’t stop him from alleging that we plagiarized him by merely publishing research on a company he also happened to write about.
Furthermore, Edwin acknowledges he wrote about billing at LifeStance, while our report mainly addressed clinician turnover issues. He summed up his report with this claim: "After reviewing the evidence, [the blog] is left wondering whether LifeStance is a thriving therapy franchise or an illegal billing operation with therapy on the side."
His claim was based on online consumer complaints. We actually looked deeply at billing, among other issues, but after 22 independent interviews, we concluded it was a mess, but not tantamount to fraud.
(3) Axos Financial - For Axos, Edwin took exception with the fact that our report quoted the company's own description from its own website. Yes—he alleges that the company description from the company’s website was plagiarized from HIM.
The content of our report, including our on the ground research and 21 interviews, was entirely organic. Even Edwin admits this, stating: "Hindenburg’s 9,505-word Axos report has some commonality with [the blog], largely focuses on different sub-issues, and does not mention [the blog] once."
Again, this is because we, in no way, relied on his work.
(4) Freedom Holdings – Again, Edwin takes exception with the fact that we merely published on a name he also published on. Our report, undertaken over the course of a year, was more than 17,000 words with 357 citations, including an independent review of extensive international corporate and regulatory records, interviews with former employees and industry analysis.
--
The size and scale of our reports are consistently larger than Edwin’s blog, and the notion that because in a handful of instances we both sourced the same publicly available information, leading to similarities in a couple dozen words in our reports, we owe a citation to him, is silly.
Overall, rather than follow the evidence, Edwin has decided to take the approach of lobbing absurd allegations to farm for engagement, which sort of cuts to the heart of the matter.
The reason we don’t use Edwin’s work is because of the few reports I’d read early on, I didn’t find them useful. We didn’t think spending 30 minutes Googling a company, checking PACER, then slapping together a couple complaints from BBB qualifies as thorough research.
Inevitably, if one puts out a brief report on a new company every week, there may be some overlap. Readers of Hindenburg recognize there is a difference in depth, content, and quality. Rather than try to improve on the quality of his work, or acknowledge the sources he gets his ideas from, Edwin has instead chosen to try to attack ours with slipshod claims that our work is somehow similar or taken from his.
The irony here is palpable: Edwin is mad at us for publishing independent research on names that he wrote about…after other outlets (like Rolling Stone, Fast, or MailOnline, in Roblox’s case) also wrote about them.
Hindenburg Research does not consider any company out-of-bounds, including companies that have been the subject of prior critical articles or reports. This is particularly true when our research turns up new issues or goes far deeper into previously covered issues by drawing on interviews, unreported documents, and proprietary data analysis.
It’s a shame that Edwin has chosen to attack us rather than engage with the issues, but nonetheless we wish him the best in the future and hope he gets the attention he’s obviously looking for.
![NateHindenburg's tweet photo. Problems With Ed Dorsey
This morning, I saw that a blog by Ed Dorsey falsely and ridiculously alleged we plagiarized from him. To be clear, I don’t read this blog, and have never in any way used or relied on his work in our own.
Hindenburg Research regularly cites hundreds of sources to make sure our readers know the sources and evidence from which we derive our conclusions, and so that readers can independently replicate our work.
For example, our more than 16,000 word, 75-page report on Roblox that we published last week included more than 300 citations.
To specifically address the blog post’s claims this morning, by company:
(1) Roblox – Edwin falsely alleged we took a chronological list of pedophile cases involving Roblox from him, for our own report, which we published days later. We have proof that we put this list together before Edwin ever published his, completely debunking his nonsensical claim.
We didn’t read or rely on Edwin’s piece at all, as can easily be seen by evidence already explained and shown to Edwin, that he has willfully ignored.
As I wrote to Edwin Friday, when he first raised these concerns, the criminal cases were referenced in a Bloomberg article in July, which we cited. That section of our report was drafted over a month before Edwin published his list. It was incorporated into our video compilation weeks before as well. We also included original source documents in our report (indictments and arrest records), which were not included in Edwin’s superficial analysis.
For some of those records, we hired runners to send to courthouses around the country to get in-person. This obviously didn't happen overnight. And our public SlideShare with those source documents shows upload dates prior to Edwin’s report. (See attached photo for example.)
In short, Edwin apparently Googled some of the same stuff we did and created a similar list ordered in a chronological fashion. Note that this half of a page of background information explaining Roblox’s well documented public history of scandal was on page 38 of our 75-page, 16,000-word report.
One could easily be forgiven had Edwin seen a similar-looking list, and rushed to judgement without clicking through the evidence to see that we had obviously developed it independently and went deeper than him. But most insidiously, this was all explained to Edwin both when I wrote to him and spoke with him on Friday. He could easily see the evidence for himself in front of him. He acknowledged this when we spoke, but instead, decided to ignore it and shamelessly lob false allegations of plagiarism anyway.
Our report also referenced Roblox’s child grooming chat rooms, which we had learned about from YouTuber Rubin Sim, cited in our report, who has done extensive work on Roblox for nearly a decade. Sim found these chat rooms as early as December 2022:
https://t.co/gY0xTDeBeq
We identified dozens of examples of these chats in our report, and included them in our video compilation. Again, all of this clearly didn’t happen overnight.
Edwin said he had flagged this issue in one of his reports days earlier with “virtually identical” (i.e., different) examples. In our conversation last week, Edwin acknowledged that he had seen Sim’s work and that it had served as the foundation for his finding on child grooming chat groups.
But today, Edwin now absurdly (and ironically) claims that this was HIS finding, and that we plagiarized it from him. He in fact also learned about it from Sim, but has now decided to take credit for the finding himself.
This seems to be a pattern. While Edwin craves recognition for the work we didn’t use, he has failed to acknowledge that major media outlets as far back as 2020 have repeatedly flagged issues of inappropriate content and pedophilia on Roblox. Contrary to his view, he did not “crack” the story—he seems to have largely Googled some things and borrowed heavily from those other works.
As with every piece we publish, our Roblox report included citations to those media sources and the sources we actually used, over 300 citations in total, along with our extensive original findings.
The implication by Edwin that his report is somehow the same or similar to ours is just odd. Most of our 75-page report was a breakdown of KPIs – an angle that no one anywhere in the investing world has published on - and expansive illicit and pedophile content that clearly was independently developed by our team over months with nothing to do with Edwin’s claims today.
Core to Edwin's grievance, as he complained to me over the phone, is that despite him publishing some work on Roblox, our report got more attention than his. This frustrated him. Rather than acknowledge that we did deeper work that covered more issues, he decided to try to turn our work into an engagement opportunity for him by lobbing groundless public allegations at us.
(2) Lifestance - During my call with Ed last week, he also complained that he was “annoyed” that we had published on LifeStance after him, although he acknowledged that there was nothing similar about the content requiring a citation, and that we had merely written about the same company with different perspectives.
Our on the ground due diligence for Lifestance was organic and detailed. Again, it had nothing to do with Edwin’s findings, as he himself acknowledged to me via phone last week. But that didn’t stop him from alleging that we plagiarized him by merely publishing research on a company he also happened to write about.
Furthermore, Edwin acknowledges he wrote about billing at LifeStance, while our report mainly addressed clinician turnover issues. He summed up his report with this claim: "After reviewing the evidence, [the blog] is left wondering whether LifeStance is a thriving therapy franchise or an illegal billing operation with therapy on the side."
His claim was based on online consumer complaints. We actually looked deeply at billing, among other issues, but after 22 independent interviews, we concluded it was a mess, but not tantamount to fraud.
(3) Axos Financial - For Axos, Edwin took exception with the fact that our report quoted the company's own description from its own website. Yes—he alleges that the company description from the company’s website was plagiarized from HIM.
The content of our report, including our on the ground research and 21 interviews, was entirely organic. Even Edwin admits this, stating: "Hindenburg’s 9,505-word Axos report has some commonality with [the blog], largely focuses on different sub-issues, and does not mention [the blog] once."
Again, this is because we, in no way, relied on his work.
(4) Freedom Holdings – Again, Edwin takes exception with the fact that we merely published on a name he also published on. Our report, undertaken over the course of a year, was more than 17,000 words with 357 citations, including an independent review of extensive international corporate and regulatory records, interviews with former employees and industry analysis.
--
The size and scale of our reports are consistently larger than Edwin’s blog, and the notion that because in a handful of instances we both sourced the same publicly available information, leading to similarities in a couple dozen words in our reports, we owe a citation to him, is silly.
Overall, rather than follow the evidence, Edwin has decided to take the approach of lobbing absurd allegations to farm for engagement, which sort of cuts to the heart of the matter.
The reason we don’t use Edwin’s work is because of the few reports I’d read early on, I didn’t find them useful. We didn’t think spending 30 minutes Googling a company, checking PACER, then slapping together a couple complaints from BBB qualifies as thorough research.
Inevitably, if one puts out a brief report on a new company every week, there may be some overlap. Readers of Hindenburg recognize there is a difference in depth, content, and quality. Rather than try to improve on the quality of his work, or acknowledge the sources he gets his ideas from, Edwin has instead chosen to try to attack ours with slipshod claims that our work is somehow similar or taken from his.
The irony here is palpable: Edwin is mad at us for publishing independent research on names that he wrote about…after other outlets (like Rolling Stone, Fast, or MailOnline, in Roblox’s case) also wrote about them.
Hindenburg Research does not consider any company out-of-bounds, including companies that have been the subject of prior critical articles or reports. This is particularly true when our research turns up new issues or goes far deeper into previously covered issues by drawing on interviews, unreported documents, and proprietary data analysis.
It’s a shame that Edwin has chosen to attack us rather than engage with the issues, but nonetheless we wish him the best in the future and hope he gets the attention he’s obviously looking for.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GZ8KHFcWkAAcjLh.png)
New LeBron ad for Hennessy is comedy 😂
NEW FROM US:
Roblox—Inflated Key Metrics For Wall Street And A Pedophile Hellscape For Kids
https://t.co/62fZ2VFyia $RBLX
(1/n)
SEC lawsuit against $SAVA inadvertently discloses placebo beat both doses of $SAVA drug:
Original data also attached. The data was so bad they had to lie.
We are short Qifu Technology, Inc. $QFIN. We believe it is a China Hustle stock with outright fake financials, fraudulent backers, and an imploding business. We believe that the company’s dividend and stock buyback program is at risk. Full Report Here: https://t.co/2CCGvLigeb
We are short Sun Communities $SUI which, in our opinion, is a mess of egregious executive behavior and manipulates critical financial disclosures which inflate adjusted funds from operation (“AFFO”) and reported organic growth. Full report at https://t.co/XOnNpww3Ho
We are short $INOD b/c we think the company currently appears to be massively exaggerating its revenues. The supposed >$100 mln agreement with a “Mag 7” client may be only 1/10th of that size. Report at: https://t.co/iOd6allTN3
Source: https://t.co/kYbk9xGW9b
Today Emanuel Cleaver, KC US House representative, voted against bill H.R. 7909, which would deport immigrants convicted of sex offenses, domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, or violating protection orders.
Clearly, @repcleaver has other interests than KC, and the US.
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
240.6M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.2M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.7M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
110.5M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.6M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.9M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
87.6M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
81.4M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
73M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
69.8M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.8M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.9M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
62.5M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
60.7M followers