The hype is still pretty strong, but not quite as strong as before. There seems to be a lot of people posting about how hedge funds have lost like $70B, but also a lot of people claiming that hedge funds mathematically couldn't have covered their shares. It doesn't make any sense to me. $70B seems way too high and above the market cap of GME even at the peak, so I'm unsure how any hedge fund could have lost more than the entire market cap by shorting the stock. I'm also unsure of the logic thinking the squeeze is yet to happen while simultaneously believing the hedge fund was taken for $70B. I don't understand how both can be true.
One thing I keep seeing repeated over and over is that hedge funds needs to buy your share (specifically yours) in order to close their shorts, and not just any share on the market, so just hold onto them as they rocket to the moon. It's unclear to me why the same share can't be repeatedly used to close out short positions, providing that you keep buying that share back at market price after you've used it to satisfy your short. If I owe 10 people an apple, why couldn't I just satisfy my debt with person #1 by giving them an apple, then buying it back at an elevated market price and then using it to pay back person #2, then buying it back, etc until all my apple shorts are satisfied?