No disrespect intended, but your post is 100% irrelevant - Feb...

No disrespect intended, but your post is 100% irrelevant - Feb data is useless, you need to only look at the stocks liquidity before he brought...not after.

6.2m Jan, with 5.8m on the 31st as a result of news, so... just looking at pre-news Jan volume, your volume data is

400k Jan
405k Dec
970k Nov
2.7m oct
etc.

Even if he wanted to buy on market, he would have had to have been the ONLY buyer in the market for almost an entire year to get his fill of 10m shares.... and we all know that is unrealistic, so to accumulate 10m on market alone would taken 2+ years assuming it was even possible - you would need to arrange off-market transfers, which maybe was attempted but rejected?

Everyone can do their own research and draw their own conclusions - I simply made an observation and my point it is was IMPOSSIBLE for an investor to buy this company on-market in any meaningful quantity.

The volume traded for this stock is abysmal, there have been some spikes and volatility, but even this sell down now it on baby volume, it means nothing, just as he share price means nothing to the tightly held register. Retail will squabble over free float trade whilst sophs invest in companies, just the way it works in these stocks and is the only reason we saw a CR at such a high premium paid.

Tl;DR - It was impossible for the soph to buy on market, the recent liquidity is only a result of his buying, so it's paradoxical to imply he should have had the foresight to buy on market, a completely baseless argument.