I appreciate your feedback and opinions 53Chevy, but I must say that I disagree with your assessments. The first point I disagree (strongly!) with is your characterization of "any shares we get are free". No, no sir, not so. This is business and we are being PAID for our ownership of a technology that these investors want to be involved with because they clearly see the potential for substantial profits from this technology. No one is doing us a favor, this is supposed to a mutually benficial business proposition where they will put up money to more fully develop the technology and WE the owners of the technology allow them to participate. Now, I do realize that this technology is NOT fully developed and so I do recognize that we cannot expect to be compensated as though it were. Fair enough. My only point was that I do not want to see the ownership split too lopsided their way.
The second point of disagreement, and really it is an extension of the first, is your reference to "they put up the cash, they absorb the risk. Why shouldn't they get the lion's share?" I disagree with that because I/you/we ALL put up cash for this endevour and so we ALL are absorbing the risk together. In other words, since you and I bought into NSHV with the understanding that this Trimark technology is part of the company's value (it might very well be THE largest part of the value in fact), then it stands to reason that we want to paid properly for the risk WE have already taken on. Put another way, shares issued into the market over this past year to raise capital have to an extent been used to begin the development and beta testing of this technology.
In conclusion, you are right that investment in stocks is a form of legalized gambling, at least on the lower exchanges, but my point is that this "legalized gambling" is not being forced on Trimark investors any more than it was forced on us. That said, and at the risk of being repetitive, I do agree it is at the same time NOT reasonable of any of us to expect that new investors of Trimark are simply going to take 10 cents on the dollar, for example, to participate when the KNOW they have leverage--the leverage of the technology needing further development (and that costs money NSHV does not have on the books), and the leverage of them knowing that NSHV needs the industry acceptance that only these types of companies can offer. Still, the whole point of my previous post and this reply to your observations is that the last thing I want the company to do is give away the technology for peanuts and "just be thankful the big boys will even talk to us". And hey, I am not trying to be a killjoy here--I am ELATED that the likes of Pearl Records, publishing companies, and now even more record labels and an Academy Award winning production company are either signing on directly or sending letters of support!!! Wonderful! But if so many respected industry insiders/titans think THAT much of this technology, then surely we should not be selling ourselves short! Do you see my point?
