Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Sure. I take that point, but it's not the scenario I'd feel confident in investing in.
Sure it possibly does, but how can you prove the absence of a problem is caused by a purported solution? There's no double blind testing available for these situations.
For example, Apple claims to have great security for the iPhone. Let's say you buy Zerify's Mobile Trust and install it on your phone. You don't get attacked by evil doers but it's impossible to know whether it's the app or Apple. Maybe if your iPhone has been repeatedly hacked in the past and when you install Mobile the attacks stop? But otherwise..............
Of course the company is going to say whatever, they're trying to sell (in theory) product. Again, please direct me to a site where an independent review concurs that this is the safest way to go. All I've seen is pay for play stuff that has no credibility. But can sound good.
What I see in your post, no offense meant, is "supposedly", "they say", "the possibility" and that's exactly my point.
The Zerify suite of products are solutions for which there are no problems. If Zoom, Microsoft, etc had been complacent in the face of serious hacking episodes that would have been one thing. But they weren't and they beefed up their security and you almost never hear of Zoom meetings being hacked, lately, or at least I haven't.
Anecdotally, my daughter is on at least 2 Zoom meetings most weeks and has been since the pandemic began and reports no security issues to date.
"Past performance is no guarantee of future results."
There seem to be an infinite number of gullible people in the microcap investing universe. I can't remember how many times I've asked, on various boards, for independent confirmation of the greatness of any of ZRFY's software and I've never received a link in answer.
The latest bit that's popping up as ads that rates them as most secure video conferencing offering is yet another pay for play situation. There's a sucker born every minute.
There's no demand for their software and whenever potential buyers do pop up, I imagine that management's sheer incompetence manifests itself and drives them away
I thought it was Waller and Ram, too, definitely not Kay. I believe Kay bailed them out of financial trouble in the old days and was rewarded by being named CEO. Whether he's done anything worthwhile for the company since then is open to debate.
No, they didn't fire anyone, to my knowledge. It was a hypothetical example of a potential use of the new word, "wallering", named after a George who earns a big salary and does no work anyone is aware of.
It is indeed odd, but there's no accounting for taste. Maybe he sees some potential here, although from our point of view that would seem silly. If it's a step-up in title, a possible resume builder, he'll stay for a little while then skedaddle to a real company.
I can see where someone might, might, see the software as competitive in the marketplace, see the comprehensive marketing incompetence and think maybe there's a way. How about we introduce into the vernacular the term "wallering" for being incompetent yet in a position to receive substantial pay?
Hey did you see that guy they just fired. It's about time, he's been wallering around here for long enough.
Why did they ever need him? A head of marketing who has done almost no deals in 20 years? It's a sinecure for him, like a no show job for someone's kid or spouse.
I dislike this company as much as any other sentient being on the planet, but that's a bit of weak case against Falbo. He left Supermicro after over 3 years and went to Real Defense / IOLO for more than a year. Altogether, not a loser's resume.
The key thing, probably, is that he was Director of Channel Sales at his last job and that's how ZRFY does almost all of its selling, so to speak. Maybe he's competent and a good fit and they'll listen to a younger guy? Nah, just joking.
I saw that, don't consider it a disclaimer, though. Where is the info about the writers / publishers positions in the stocks they cover, if any, or info about any payment made by the companies for exposure in any articles?
What you've posted is boiler plate denial of responsibility for investments made as the result of any articles.
A French website with no disclaimer. What's not to like?
No idea, maybe last week? Not too long ago.
Not sure they have the guts to face shareholders in person. They've created a lot of angry investors, some of whom might like to confront them in person.
This is not a threat. You couldn't get me to attend another one of those pointless gatherings in person, even if it was held in my living room.
It was a video conferencing event, though, right?
What would be the point? The voting is rigged, management lies, am I missing something?
I don't understand why an obvious p.r. piece masquerading as news wouldn't drive a large gain.
I've seen it repeatedly. Maybe you need to go onto the ZRFY website first then it can mine your data and show the ad.
CNBC.com
I'm getting these pop-up ads that some company, AiteNovarica, rates Zerify as the #1 in secure video conferencing. Going on to their website, though, it seems pretty clear this is a branding joint and it's all pay for play.
Maybe that's what the youngster is up to? Not so very impressive.
Sure but that's apples and oranges. TSLA has a lot of institutional ownership and very deep pocketed investors. ZRFY has a bunch of $10K investors who want to make a profit and get out asap. The TSLA crowd can easily afford the best lawyers, while the ZRFY crowd cannot possibly compete against BlankRome.
The validity of the argument is almost beside the point, though. The SEC is bombarded with an infinite number of complaints about management teams in micro-cap stocks who crap on retail investors. By the time they get to ZRFY, if they ever do, this management team will be long gone, having ridden off into the sunset with our hard earned money.
They aren't cutting their salaries. You've been mentioning this for a while and others did before you. Not gonna happen.
If you still think they have any regard for long-term shareholders you haven't been reading the room correctly.
They never have and it's suited them just fine, they never will.
There will be no progress in sales because there's no demand for their products at all. And the people in charge of their marketing are between their mid 60's to mid 70's in age. How about asking someone, say, 30 years old if they think people that age could be effective selling for a start up software firm? They're clueless and that also suits them just fine.
I agree with your sentiments, but that's so not the definition of stupidity:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/stupid
What you're calling stupidity is much more often referred to as being foolhardy.
They are seeking investors to do private deals. We know how this works: issue new shares for a minimum buy-in, pump the stock online with trolls and in pay-for- play media.
That will guarantee a certain number of new retail investors who get excited about the supposed prospects and throw money at the stock which will temporarily drive up share price.
Private deal people make their money and get out, company sells no software (to speak of) share price resumes its plummet.
Yes, but "misleading" might as well be Kay's middle name. He's an expert at the art of the fudge, they "expect" to earn such and such, these were their customers 18 years ago, who tried one of their offerings for a year and didn't renew. So, sure they were a customer in the past 20 years. What else does he have? There's just no market for what they're selling, they are solutions for which there are no problems.
I remember the military poster, he was active for a while. I mean supposedly some Russian troops were bombed by the Ukrainians, recently, because they were using phones that could be traced. I guess we can conclude from that, possibly, that the American military found a solution that doesn't involve SFOR (then) software.
At any rate, if shareholders are desperate enough to believe they need to participate in a publicly traded company's marketing plan, there's no logic to owning shares in that company.
The website doesn't state that they are current users. Only that they've been customers at some point during the past 20 years, which is entirely possible.
How can they be? That would require that the viewers of his video presentations to also use Zerify.
It's not unfair. Some of the open source versions of ZRFY software have more and better features than theirs. You're talking about a Red Hat, which is on the corporate level, but I maintain that consumers aren't going to pay for something that's available for free. Red Hat didn't even pursue the retail market, I don't think.
Right from the beginning, starting years ago, there were open-source versions of StrikeForce's first 3 software products, except for Mobile - I couldn't find one for it but stopped looking a while ago. Who's going to pay when equal or better is available for free?
Then they spun off BlockSafe, which is a little confusing to me. I'm guessing that since they made it a separate company, any revenue it generates will be separate and not show up on the ZRFY books.
That leaves the Zerify suite of products, in which there seems to be zero interest in the marketplace. Of course these guys, from their mid 60's to mid 70's years old, have no clue how to market software in the 21st century.
https://www.techradar.com/best/best-video-conferencing-software
Again and again, there are 5 colleges within 20 miles of Zerify headquarters and from all the company has reported, none of them have ever bought anything, ever, which is a bit of a mystery. You also have to wonder why BlankRome, the law firm of record, does not lease any Zerify software and why Kay has been completely unable to get any group from Morgan to buy in, too.
Clearly this company isn't about launching innovative software and making a big splash in the tech world. It must be about something else, which, I guess, is just selling shares.
Right, it says "securing global organizations for over 20 years", so it's entirely possible one of those companies bought a license from the old SFOR 18 years, ago, say, and never renewed.
Clearly they are not listed as current customers, though, so, more of the half-assed Kay subterfuge, he's even a lousy liar.
What we've seen happen time and time again with ZRFY, over the years, is playing out again now.
Shares are issued at a price equal to or below the price on the open market, with various minimum buy-ins, this time I think $10K. Kay, then, makes a big production about fantasy upcoming revenues and does a few of his dopey interviews. Then, the newly hatched suckers get excited about all the good stuff that's going to happen and merrily throw their money away on this stock. This temporarily drives the share price up so the $10K- and-up gang can take some profits before reality sets back in.
Other than patent infringement, I don't really think Kay's doing anything illegal, he's just an amoral sociopath. The SEC will do nothing about this, they are inundated with complaints about innumerable penny stock company management teams who are abusing shareholders.
I went to a shareholders' meeting some years ago and had private conversations with Kay and George at the hotel bar after party. I badly misread the room, though, thought they were hard working, trustworthy businessmen and threw away a bunch of dough on their schemings.
People tend to ignore warning signs that disturb whatever narrative they've invested in, emotionally, intellectually, or financially. When the company bought time on HSN to hawk their anti-keylogging software, it was a big flashing exit sign that I, and a lot of others, ignored.
True. I'm unsure what exactly the patent issues are. I mean if they lose in court and can no longer sell Zerify, for example, it's lights out.
Also interesting in that doc that was posted, it seems they spun off BlockSafe as its own company. Meaning that revenues it creates, if any, will have no meaningful impact on ZRFY share price and management can just feed at that trough, too.
The larger question, though, is why would anyone even close to being in their right mind invest in this stock? If you're down a lot, like I am, and hope share price will rebound enough to make back your losses, sorry, it's just not gonna happen.
With what money?
He also confirmed there wouldn't be a r/s two weeks before the 1:500 in June 2020.
You must be new here if you think he can be taken at his word.
Yes I suppose it was a variety of things that added up to the explosion, so to speak. In a culture where honor plays an oversized role, who actually knows when the line was crossed.
Re:Russia. Gonna try to find the link that Russia's agriculture sector has been severely negatively impacted by climate change already. Melting permafrost, out of control fires, you know the deal.
Someone was theorizing somewhere that it is one of the main reasons for their invasion of the Ukrainian bread basket. Will search for the link anon.
It seems to be one size fits all. That is, there were probably a number of reasons for the attack and one of them pushed Japan over the edge. Of course, the real reason was probably something no one knows about and will never know.
Ok, I see you that and raise you this;
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-did-japan-attack-pearl-harbor
Second sentence:
"Why did the Japanese attack the USA? - The answer is oil."
Hey, I couldn't find your original message to me, meant to thank you for bringing me over here.
You gotta love the Monroe Doctrine, hey, this hemisphere is ours!
My father in law (deceased) was pulled out of college to work on the original A bomb. A mixed family legacy, he left my son his army uniform with the very rare exploding A bomb sleeve patch. But his kids aren't really overjoyed that he helped engineer death and destruction, possibly unnecessarily, on that scale.
By the way, I'm about 2/3 through the J6 report. I recommend it highly. Much better written than I thought it would be and no matter how sick you are of it and the T word, it's an eye opener. It's a page turner, flat out.
Not if he was also the owner (CEO).
Fool me once shame on you, fool me over and over and over again, shame on me.
Anyone who still thinks this is a legit company has only the image in their mirror to blame.
Replacing the ZRFY CEO (which is impossible) would do nothing. Its software would still be unwanted in the marketplace. If Zerify is at all worthwhile, it would have been bought out by Zoom, or some such, ages ago, to either incorporate its features or remove it as competition.
If you went into the same bar repeatedly and every time you ordered a drink the bartender threw it in your face, you'd probably, soon enough, get the idea to not go into that bar any more.
Why is it so hard to understand that's what Kay is doing and why would anyone, at this point, expect anything different from him?
Their business is selling shares and you people who keep believing the company has good software and is making a determined effort to sell it are, well, sad to behold. As was I.
If you're paid 100K on your job this year, what did you earn? How much do you earn on your job?
Now if you take that 100k and go 25K in debt buying ZFOR stock, you still earned 100K this year.