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.
Can you provide facts to support? When the pictures of the stores were put up, BS was called and it was nothing more than a promo, not real. I am not saying they are or are not, but to say they are now real/legit and not associated with DryWorld (IBGR) means there are facts via PR's by Dryworld or the alleged real owners to support the claim. imo
Wait, I thought the Chinese stores were not legit. It has been claimed on this board multiple times that they were not real, didn't exist.
So now there are legit DryWorld stores in China? I will still wait to hear from the company before I am comfortable with how those stores fit or don't fit into this investment. imo
The facts are the name of the company is DryWorld, if nothing else Nexus Energy. Illegal burger is not the name. The name has been changed. The company is working on changing the symbol from IBGR to DRYW with FINRA. Everything else is already done. imo
Try us. I think I understand just fine and have a strong grasp on share structure. Imo
How long ago was this loaded? How many shares is considered loaded? they are still holding their loaded shares? If one thinks this was Loaded and they are still holding, then I would bet that more shares have been sold then are available in the float. Imo.
There is just as much (if not more) alleged promotion as there is non promotion. Since it’s already been established that no one mentioned the company was promoting. Imo
Wrong. History is exactly that…History. When driving do you spend all your time looking in the rear view mirror as to where you have been or looking through the windshield to where you are going?
That’s simple, (I’m not the company, so it’s my opinion) If the ticker Doesn’t change to DRYW, they will continue to operated the business. Did they so a partnership with SLT and A1 Fitness without the ticker change? The ticker change isn’t necessary. As far as the name change, it has been changed with NVSOS and most trading platforms show ibgr as Dryworld. So I only see bonus with the ticker change. Imo.
So you are agreeing that illegal burger is not registered to do business under IBGR, like you originally stated? That being said, i don’t have the answer as to why Dryworld/FINRA haven’t changed the ticker to DRYW, but they stated in their corporate update they are working on it. So I’m waiting just like everyone else. The bigger question is…what happens when the ticker Does change to DRYW? Imo
Nor would I consider it in-depth knowledge. Imo
IBGR is registered in Neveda and the Secretary of State shows this business as registered and named Dryworld Brands. Please provide the state in which you found IBGR (as Illegal burger registered to do business)? I’d love to know, I only found Dryworld. Imo
Farce? Provide the DD that was done to support.
Me too. This company has delivered on the bulk of the issues raised. The only two left are ticker change and audited financials. Worst case On financials is they have to wait for 2 years of Dryworld Activity which would be august/September. I believe they will get it done sooner. As far as the ticker change, it will happen when it happens. As Far as ticker, so many assumptions about issues with out knowing. Assumptions are exactly that, assumptions. Imo
Exactly, if there is no volume, why would one (MM or Retail) stack the ask? There is nothing to gain from it other than to try and create panic. If one has been paying attention, it's clock work here. Early in the day, the ask has lower volume, and the hope is to get some sales. Then in the afternoon, the ask gets stacked, why? I believe It's to create the image that the stock will only move down, and some retail traders fall for it. Then they can either buy back for a profit. There are articles written that explain this exact phenom. I'm just saying, I will not fall for it. imo
Also, look at who the articles were written by? Very telling how MM's work.
DryWorld has landed a 3 year deal with SLT, launched e-commerce, launched Amazon, Landed a deal to have a store in the A1 facility with options to do in others, and yet it's a scam? To many people in on this alleged scam. They are doing things slower than we all want, but they are accomplishing things that have been stated as obstacles. Dryworld has proven doubters wrong thus far, and I believe they will continue to prove their doubters wrong. Time will tell. imo
Exactly. that's what they want though so people will sell to them. it will be a tough road. imo
In my opinion, panic is what MM's want. My believe is we will be fine. imo
Oh my gosh, the world is coming to end because Darya got shares. Help. imo (just a little sarcasm).
Now that’s a funny connection. They haven’t even launched her line, and it might be a reason why they haven’t yet. I bet it doesn’t have any impact on Dryworld. Plus Darya lives in the US and has for a while. I see it as a none event. Imo
Folks? Who are folks saying it’s affecting Dryworld? Provide a link of this fact. Imo
Yes, but if you put in orders of 2500, and there are multiple orders, they typically show up on the ask in total...correct?
Either way, when I put in an order with fidelity, there is no contingent order.
Well, another 5K shares hit the ask, and the 2500 still show...never moved. Honestly, how does retail do that? I really want to know.
Whoever is on the ask has hidden shares. 2500 shares on ask and 2193 shares were bought, and the ask didn't move. I still want to know how retail can hide large orders. No one has been able to answer. imo
I find it the opposite. When I put in a bid I’m getting jumped pretty quickly. Almost like it’s automatic computer generated. Imo
How do you know it’s retail. I’m curious?
I think the it’s safe to say it USED to mean/be Illegal burger. It is not any longer. IBGR is Dryworld. Imo
100%. It’s like the speculation on Saint Piran. No one knows, but it is speculation based on what is seen on social media or by googling. Imo
I don't know, but 38K shares just hit the ask and the ask price didn't move? lol
I forgot, it's allegedly Retail hiding orders again. how does retail do that again? imo
The evidence of an IBGR contra promotion is evident and easy to find as well. Imo
I agree. I would love to see fact about this so called promo. Imo
Got it, so the promo that has never been explained is to blame for the great return on one’s investment? That is the oldest trick in the otcpink book. Blame a promo for the success of a company. Imo
Yeah, do you remember 100 years ago when this one thing happened? Sarcasm of course. That’s not relevant today? Same thing here.
Time will show that Dryworld is the real deal. That’s my belief. They have proven all the other scam claims to be wrong, so hopefully they continue doing so. Imo
Ok, well my opinion is that it isn’t. SLT and Darya doesn’t think so either. Imo
What Promo? No clue about a promo and am unaware of one. The claim I've seen is that naked shorting didn't happen with IBGR, and the facts show it did actually happen. I understand the claim is that it's all for the sake of liquidity.
The question still remains...are MM's required to report naked short positions of alternative reporting/otc pink stocks? That's the only question yet to be answered. If they are required, then it's simple research to determine if it's being done.
I'm pretty sure OTCMarkets showed a status of "significant failed to delivers" of no in December too, when the facts showed it did occur. Therefore, the question to be determined (assuming otcmarkets has the most current information, which I have no facts to say it does or doesn't) is the definition of "significant". imo
I honestly don't know if shorting (naked or not) is or isn't happening currently, but I do have a lot of questions.
1) Has anyone noticed a lot of 5 and 6 digit trades. How does retail do that again?
2) did anyone notice trades occuring in between the bid and the ask? Or large orders...say 10K or more hit an ask of 2,500 shares and the ask price never moves? It appears there are hidden orders. How does a retail seller put up a 10-20K order at the ask and not have the shares be shown?
3) when one puts in bid, and immediately the bid is .0001 higher than the bid just submitted. Are we to assume it's algorithms to create liquidity?
Just a few questions I wish I knew the answers, but I guess I'm not alone as they have never been answered when asked. An answer of liquidity is a cop out. imo
Naked shorting was reported and occurred in the reporting for the first half of December. The report doesn’t lie and it was on the official govt site, which is the official source. Naked shorting did occur with Dryworld in December. The real question still remains…do MMs have a legal obligation to report naked short positions in the otcpink market. If the answer is proven to be yes, then there is factual information to research to see If it is occurring today. Imo
So, Are the MMs required to report naked short position on alternative reporting otcpink stocks? I believe the answer is no, they aren’t required, therefore, it has been proven (those MMs that did voluntarily disclose in the first half December reporting) that is did occur. The facts are the truth…period, it can’t be debated. Imo
Investors need to understand the truth. naked shorting has been proven and shared on here, on ihub, which proves it occurred with Dryworld. It’s fact and can’t be disputed. That’s the beauty with facts, it represents the truth. The real question is…are MMs required to report their naked short
Positions in the OTCPink/alternative reporting stocks? what hasn’t been reported and is it still occurring? I don’t know, but When they become SEC reporting and uplisted, we will find out. Imo
Actually, 18 months ago we were at 2.2 cents, so we are up over 1,000%.
Over the last 18 months it is probably up like 800% plus. Imo
Wrong. Most executives have common shares. Plus, they do have preferred as well. Nothing sketch about them owning common shares. Imo