The article quotes a third party source who claims "According to the source close to the NSCC, the lower amount came about because of Robinhood’s decision to limit trading in GameStop and other meme shares." but then the article goes on to directly say "While Robinhood did speak with executives at NSCC, the conversation entailed confirming that limiting the stock sales would count toward reducing its $3 billion collateral demand—but did not result in the amount being reduced." I don't believe this is good counter evidence as mentioned in the above comment, it seems self contradictory if anything. How could it be conditional if there was no negotiations, yet the entire thing was waived on a discretional basis?
