The next set of notes are not set to convert until 4/16 and 4/26. We will probably be pretty slow until then, unless a fluff, string us a long PR/Twit comes out for note holders to dump shares and add to the O/S. But around 4/16, a minimum of 100,000,000 in stocks will be traded, watch.

I totally agree. There is also no public confirmation that Redchip even sold any shares, regardless of what anyone say. Adrian clearly broke down notes that had been converted to stock and the price they represented; as well as the shares he diluted (sold to the public) and price they represented. So why would he not fully disclose RedChip information, he only gave us the number of shares issued, not the total amount they represented.

My initial point since some claimed Redchip collected the $45,000 fee, (which implied the shares were sold) was how do we know the price the stock sold for and on what day, when all we know publicly was how many shares was issued to them.

I did know there was some requirements/restrictions to sell rule 144 stock, but I went back and reread the rule to see if there was any loopholes since one person claimed that Adrian confirmed Redchip only received $45,000.

Now why would Adrian disclose that information to an individual "not affiliated with the company" and not put that the shares sold and the amount in the annual report if Redchip did indeed sale before the one year restriction.

That's also why I said things maybe clearer when the 1st quarter report is released.

So is the attached post not correct. If someone bought at .0002, someone had to sell at .0002, correct??? No one knows when Redchip sold the shares that were issued.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=128850053

I've read the annual report multiple times to get a clear understanding and it never said Redchip sold the the shares at .0001 and collected $45,000. What it said is they were issued 450,000,000 shares. What they actually sold the shares for and when they were sold are a different story. There were days that this stock traded at .0002. Redchip could have easily sold some of the shares at .0002 or like I stated before the shares could have been issued to them in two separate transactions.

A lot of this information will not be clear or made public to us until the 1st quarter report is filed and released.

That's what my first thought was, but I through those other examples out there just to play devil's advocate.

There are multiple reasons why only 450,000,000 shares were given to RedChip in 2016, per the annual report, that would equal $45,000 at the current share price of .0001.

1) It could be a partial payment and the remaining shares were issued in January 2017.

2) Maybe Adrian did not sign up for the full six months, and the fee was prorated.

3) Maybe Redchip was able to sell some of the shares at .0002 and didn't need any additional shares.

When you spoke to Adrian did he give a definite reason way only 450,000,000 shares were issued to redchip in 2016.

The former owners were mentioned. Both Mel and Darren hold Series C and Series E stock as payment owed to them by the company. They were also issued convertible notes along with some others in 2016. Based on the way those convertible notes were issued, those are the original investors of the company.

To me, it looks like they are being paid once the notes converts, instead of cashing in there stock (because the amount of shares they own won't cover what they're owed because the stock is at .0001 and their Series E is not convertible), and that is how the stock is being diluted.

It also looks like Adrian only issued about $105,100 worth of stock to the public, a little over a billion shares. The rest is coming from the conversation of notes to stock.

So since more notes were issued after 2/2016 the dilution will not stop anytime soon

It now makes sense when Adrian said the creditors are the ones keeping the company going and making shares available to the public.

At least we know who the real ones on the board were, regardless where they stood about DNAX. Tomorrow will be very interesting after DNA Brands annual report was released on Friday. LOL

You two are late to the party. The annual report is already out and stickied. Surprisingly no one has nothing, or very little to say, which says a lot.

Well, if production does indeed start, I'm sure it will go up a tick maybe two. The question is how many people will buy at .0002 or .0003 in order for us to get out with a profit. Profit or not, as soon as this thing does pop a couple of ticks and stay there for a few days, is our best chance of getting out. I'm not trying to be greedy and hang on thinking it will go higher.

Like I said before, this company has never been profitable even when they had a good year in 2010 and 2011, because of salaries and overhead.

People tried to paint Janon Costley as the Scam Artist, but now it's looking like Adrian Mckenzie maybe the Scam Artist. Now I'm wondering who really ended the "joint-venture", if they are indeed no longer working together.

We know there's no revenue, I'm looking at debt being reduced, convertible notes issued or outstanding, cash on hand (with all the dilution), salaries paid, and company ownership % (if it's more than 10% names are listed, and if less then 10% the percentages are still there.

That's why I'm more interested in the annual report, then the quarterly report. Hopefully it's detailed, sometimes they are, sometimes they're not.

All we can hope for is that this thing will go up a couple of ticks in order to get out.

I don't know why anyone would still be promoting this stock, unless they have know choice. Regardless if a production run is done and they are put in multiple stores in Florida, there is know way this company will turn a profit. DNA was in hundreds of stores until 2014 and still could not be profitable with all eight flavors in production and selling the meat snacks.

No one is buying at .0003, but if the 4th quarter report is released soon and it looks good, we may get out of the triple zeros.

Good Luck Everyone

Yes, this company may have spent a lot of money on R & D to get the product developed, but if you look at the older SEC filings, it's obvious they were getting financing than taking more money out of the company for salaries then the company made. Did Mel and Darren use some of there own money to start DNA, probably, but you can't take more money out the business than it is generating. Also Adrian stated that the company was generating revenue of 2 million dollars a year up until 2014. That's not true, because the 10k I posted showed the sales for 2012 and 2013. Sales was not even close to a million, even with the meat products included from 2012.

Either some stores wasn't setting them out on a regular basis or they were pulled. I'm not a daily convenient store shopper, so if it's not in the case or on the shelf, I just grab something else and go.

Thanks, I first took notice of this stock and company in 2013, and agree that it had all the right components to be a huge success. When the drinks actually came to Texas, I was very impressed, but of course they didn't last very long. I don't know what all happened with that, but it wasn't all because of the Fowler debacle. What I can remember they were pulled before that. I do hope Adrian is serious about turning this company around and the relaunch, but right now I have my doubts. This is a good product, but of course not all good products make it and a lot fail because of management.

What, did you do for DNA? I like hearing from people who have a little more knowledge. It don't mean my thoughts and opinions will change, because what a company did 2+ years ago don't necessarily mean they will go in that same direction. If we are to believe Adrian is here to make the company better than where was was, changes do have to happen, otherwise it will be the same failed company.

Have there been any update on the 54 billion shares that are being retired.