The article talks about some very important people who bought or sold something related to a company called Pinterest. They are called "whales" because they make big decisions that can affect the price of the company's shares. The article also says these whales have different opinions about whether the company will do well or not, so their actions might cause the share price to go up or down. The people who wrote the article tried to guess how much each share would cost in the next few months based on what the whales did, and they think it could be between $40 and $42 per share. Read from source...

1. The title is misleading and sensationalized. It suggests that the article is about some secret or exclusive information on what whales are doing with PINS, when in fact it is just a summary of options trades spotted by Benzinga's options scanner. There is no evidence that these whales know something that the public does not, or that they have any special insights into Pinterest's performance or future prospects.
2. The article uses vague and ambiguous terms to describe the investors' sentiment, such as "split between 50% bullish and 50%, bearish". This is confusing and unclear, as it does not specify whether this refers to the number of trades, the dollar value, or the net position of each investor. It also contradicts itself later by saying that out of all the special options uncovered, 8 are puts and 2 are calls, implying that there is some pattern or significance to the ratio.
3. The article makes unsupported claims about the predicted price range based on the trading activity. It does not explain how it arrived at this estimate, what assumptions it made, or how reliable or accurate it is. It also ignores the possibility of other factors influencing the price, such as market conditions, fundamentals, earnings, news, etc.
4. The article fails to provide any context or comparison for the volume and open interest trends. It does not explain what these numbers mean, how they relate to the options prices, or how they compare to historical or industry norms. It also does not mention any other metrics or indicators that could help investors evaluate the performance of Pinterest's stock or options.
5. The article is overly simplistic and superficial in its analysis. It relies on vague terms, anecdotal evidence, and unsupported predictions to try to create interest and curiosity among readers. It does not provide any deeper insight or value for investors who want to make informed decisions based on data-driven and rational arguments.