I might be misunderstanding your guys' discussion but I thought...

I might be misunderstanding your guys' discussion but I thought it arose out of a debate as to whether the recent fall in price was the result of retail investors selling off or sophisticated investors. If so, the investors can be divided into two groups:
* Retail investors (i.e. non-sophs)
* Sophisticated/institutional investors

We know for certain that 100% of the December capital raise went to sophisticated/institutional investors because they were the only ones eligible to participate. I agree with your point that the sophs participating in the capital raise might be different than the sophs dumping their shares. Regardless, they're both in the "sophs" group and we are observing their aggregate behavior.

The broker data shows that the broker's who typically service sophisticated investors had net selling activity post discovery. I agree with this. CI then brought up a point that I found interesting that the broker data does not include capital raises. This makes complete sense but was not immediately obvious to me. Given this, you can make several conclusions:
* Since the discovery announcement, sophs have been selling shares to retail investors (I believe this is the primary point you're emphasizing)
* Since the discovery announcement, sophs have been net buyers of shares after accounting for the shares purchased in the placement (this is the point CI was emphasizing).
* Furthermore, given that sophs have been selling shares to retail, retail has also been net buyers of shares post discovery (this is possible because shares were issued post discovery making it possible for both sophs and retail to be net buyers during the period)

Based on the limited data we have (i.e. the screenshot of broker data someone posted), I believe all of the above statements are true. This still leaves the question of who is responsible for the recent price fall? Based on the broker data, both the sophs and retail investors have been net buyers of shares post discovery. This is an interesting conclusion imo that wasn't immediately obvious to me. The answer for me is "I don't know who is responsible".

Personally I think the below market raises to sophisticated investors has had a significant negative impact on people's willingness to buy shares on the market. Every raise since I started following the company has been 15% to 25% below market with free options on top. I'm a retail investor and have been a huge net buyer of shares post discovery (about 6x my original number of shares). So I don't blame myself for the selloff that's for sure, lol.