So people who were going to continue to sell off got lucky that they couldn't make that trade, and people who were going to buy got unlucky?
Does anyone seriously expect compensation, or think that it's deserved, or is it group wishful thinking? How would it even work? Would they just take people's word for their supposed intent? Or are people wanting some sort of "here's a gift card" type deal?
This is not to defend RobinHood - I've personally kept my money with well-established companies cause conservative, old, proven systems seem like a good thing for a product in this space - but shit happens, no? There will be more good days, and more bad days, in the market, it's a long-run game anyway, and it's pretty easy to vote with your wallet in this space.
I suspect you're right though, that it's mostly sour grapes concerning the opposite case - inability to buy as the market rallied.
I had never heard of /r/wallstreetbets or Robin Hood (well, barely) until a couple weeks ago.
There is an entire generation that has never traded through a crisis.
Of course the problem with the "compensate me" arguments is that a lot of people were going to make decisions that would have turned out poorly yesterday (indeed, the market is balanced and every transaction has a counterparty), though of course with the amazing clarity of hindsight few would recognize or admit that. So if they need to compensate for illusory lost trades, do some people have to pay them for losses they would have incurred?
[I get that there are some complex options that can legitimately be all downside when trading isn't available, but that's a less common option]
