Create Account
Log In
Dark
chart
exchange
Premium
Terminal
Screener
Stocks
Crypto
Forex
Trends
Depth
Close
Check out our API

CYA
Simplify Tail Risk Strategy ETF
stock NYSE

Inactive
Mar 7, 2024
0.5093USD+1.718%(+0.0086)182,782
Pre-market
0.00USD-100.000%(-0.50)0
After-hours
0.00USD0.000%(0.00)0
OverviewPrice & VolumeSplitsHistoricalExchange VolumeDark Pool LevelsDark Pool PrintsExchangesShort VolumeShort Interest - DailyShort InterestBorrow Fee (CTB)Failure to Deliver (FTD)ShortsTrendsNewsTrends
CYA Reddit Mentions
Subreddits
Limit Labels     

We have sentiment values and mention counts going back to 2017. The complete data set is available via the API.
Take me to the API
CYA Specific Mentions
As of Jul 18, 2026 3:58:44 PM EDT (<1 min. ago)
Includes all comments and posts. Mentions per user per ticker capped at one per hour.
3 hr ago • u/nullc • r/Bitcoin • bitcoin_mining_giant_foundry_asks_miners_to_vote • C
I suspect it's a product of a hurried move-- Ocean mining's lawyer has been contacting miners/pools with fud about legal risks (e.g. your miners will sue you if you don't signal) and so far there has been little reason for them or anyone else to give this proposal any attention.
So it probably reflects more what they could do quickly rather than a reasoned approach of what they should do. The better move would be to offer two stratum endpoints so miners could simply pick which they wanted to mine on, and have the funds pooling split once the chains split. But that obviously takes more work to implement than putting up a web poll. My guess is that they already confirmed with large miners that it was unlikely to get support, and so they'd need to do nothing beyond putting up the poll.
Otherwise the details are off: By directing the whole pool based on the majority you get a voting block effect and open it up to gamemanship. Say almost all foundary miners oppose 110, but enough decided that they can make foundry enforce 110 then as soon as it activates leave the pool to remove their competitions hashrate from the network temporarily. This kind of nonsense is avoided by just having two endpoints.
There is also an implementation issue-- their decision isn't decided until the moment it takes effect. So we'd go from not knowing what their decision is to them immediately rejecting blocks a second later. That's going to be practically difficult for them to deploy (suggesting to me they don't expect the answer to be yes), but if it did happen it would be quite disruptive to the network. [Bier has written about this](https://x.com/BitMEX_Jon/status/2078188154817777717). Though I think foundary knows it won't go yes and is just CYA by creating an option after the fud created by Ocean Mining, and so the mess of what happens if it goes Yes is a non-issue.
sentiment -0.96
1 day ago • u/the__storm • r/wallstreetbets • is_the_software_bottom_in • C
They don't have to vibe code SQL server, they can just use postgres. Microsoft's moat is (and for years has been) corporate inertia mixed with CYA.
sentiment 0.00
2 days ago • u/Soft_Walrus_3605 • r/wallstreetbets • youre_not_a_true_regard_until_the_casino_itself • C
This isn't "concern" for you. This is CYA.
sentiment 0.00
3 days ago • u/TylerDurdenEsq • r/wallstreetbets • youre_not_a_true_regard_until_the_casino_itself • C
It’s all lawyer driven CYA
sentiment 0.00


Share
About
Pricing
Policies
Markets
API
Info
tz UTC-4
Connect with us
ChartExchange Email
ChartExchange on Discord
ChartExchange on X
ChartExchange on Reddit
ChartExchange on GitHub
ChartExchange on YouTube
© 2020 - 2026 ChartExchange LLC