From “Flash Crashes” to “GameStop”: Paradigm Shift in Algorithm-Driven Market Crises

Authors

  • Hongyi Han

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61173/f6k03t61

Keywords:

Algorithmic Trading, Social Media, Market Crisis, Paradigm Shift, Financial Stability

Abstract

This paper examines the paradigm shift in financial market crises during the era of algorithms and social media, using the 2010 “Flash Crash” and the 2021 “GameStop” incident as comparative case studies. The research reveals that the driving mechanisms of market crises have evolved from the old paradigm dominated by technical failures in institutional algorithms to a new paradigm fueled by retail algorithmic trading and emotional resonance amplified by social media. This paradigm shift is driven by three structural forces: technological democratization, the information dissemination revolution, and cultural paradigm shifts. It manifests in fundamental transformations: crisis agents shifting from institutions to retail investors; core drivers transitioning from mathematical logic to social psychology; communication channels evolving from specialized networks to public squares; and crisis forms changing from systemic shocks to targeted explosions. This paradigm shift poses profound challenges to financial stability: it leads to the “diffusion” of risk sources, the ‘malfunction’ of classical theories, and the “defocusing” of traditional regulation. To address these challenges, this paper constructs a multi-dimensional agile governance framework based on three pillars: technology empowerment, platform accountability, and mechanism reconstruction. This framework aims to tackle new market risks and provides theoretical insights and practical pathways for regulating financial markets in the digital age.

References

[1] Hendershott, T., Jones, C. M., & Menkveld, A. J. (2011). Does algorithmic trading improve liquidity?. The Journal of finance, 66(1), 1-33.

[2] Brogaard, J., Hendershott, T., & Riordan, R. (2014). Highfrequency trading and price discovery. The Review of Financial Studies, 27(8), 2267-2306. Dean&Francis ISSN 2959-6130

[3] Menkveld, A. J. (2013). High frequency trading and the new market makers. Journal of financial Markets, 16(4), 712-740.

[4] Zhang, F. (2010). High-frequency trading, stock volatility, and price discovery. Available at SSRN 1691679.

[5] Fu, S. M., Alexakis, C., Pappas, V., Skarmeas, E., & Verousis, T. (2024). Does algorithmic trading induce herding?. International Journal of Finance & Economics.

[6] Bookstaber, R. (2017). The end of theory: Financial crises, the failure of economics, and the sweep of human interaction.

[7] Arnal, J. T. (2015). Financial crisis and the failure of economic theory. Routledge.

[8] Easley, D., De Prado, M. M. L., & O’Hara, M. (2011). The microstructure of the” flash crash”: Flow toxicity, liquidity crashes, and the probability of informed trading. Journal of Portfolio Management, 37(2), 118.

[9] Naderi, M. (2022). Market Agents and Flash Crashes (Doctoral dissertation, UCL (University College London)).

[10] Barber, B. M., Huang, X., Odean, T., & Schwarz, C. (2022). Attention‐induced trading and returns: Evidence from Robinhood users. The Journal of Finance, 77(6), 3141-3190.

[11] Chapkovski, P., Khapko, M., & Zoican, M. (2024). Trading gamification and investor behavior. Management Science.

[12] Joshi, R., Samnani, M. B., & Khajanchi, M. I. (2024). Gamified Investing: An Analysis of Investment Behaviour of Retail Investors Using Financial Applications.

[13] K Robert, Y. (2018). Case study research and applications design and methods. Library of Congress Cataloging-in- Publication Data.

Downloads

Published

2025-12-19