Why don't you go back and read Banossers original post on the subject. Then if you want to argue his point I'd be happy to show you the error of your ways. What you say in your post makes sense in that if Swartz was selling it would have had a downward affect on the shareprice. Unfortunately that's not the argument that biajj and Banosser have been putting forth. They were arguing that Swartz' witholding of shares from the float caused the shareprice to go up significantly more than it would normally have. After all, if you control 50% of the float, that's significant. I'm saying Swartz never controlled a significant percent of the float. And that point is not arguable since Swartz warrants would not be considered part of the float since they are not outstanding shares if they are warrants. If Swartz converts the warrants to shares he is actually increasing the float, unless his intent is not to sell them, which would mean he's simply not affecting the float at all. You can't possibly argue that he's decreasing the float by converting warrants, as biajj tried to suggest. You can possibly argue that he's now withholding a great percentage of the float. But that argument is specious since the total number of shares available to trade would not change under that scenario so there would be no abnormal upward pressure on the shareprice due to unavailabilty of shares.