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.
It’s getting feisty on the other board. Some of the homers are starting to realize the expected small revenue won’t even pay for the executive salaries. Reality is setting in.
All the channel partners have resulted into no revenue. What have the executives been doing all this time to deserve those salaries? Nothing to show for it. Except the money they are making on the side through ACS and CSI.
Only losers here are the shareholders. Including myself. Wish I could get out of this shithole.
Just doing a quick google search, since 2008, here is an unofficial (and most certainly incomplete) list of channel partners SFOR had signed with:
- Oracle identity assurance Partners alliance - 2008
- Veratad 2011
- FlexiP 2013
- SynerComm 2013
- Solantus 2013
- CDIS Group 2013
- VigiTrust 2013
- CSI (ACS) 2015
- Blocksafe (own) 2017
- HSN 2017
- The Shopping Channel 2018
- Caroni 2019
- Alvarez
- Trade Harbor
These were just the ones I found. Probably more. This does not include anything SFOR was working on themselves.
That’s quite a list for the total annual revenue. Someone is not holding up their end of the bargain.
Can you clarify what independent “guarantees” you are referring to? I only ask bc there is a disconnect and miscommunication on the pending revenue:
1) the PCI and Gallagher deals are NOT exclusive to Strikeforce. All other OOBA companies are able to be purchased in addition to Strikeforce. It is not a guarantee companies will purchase Strikeforce. This is explained in the PCI and Gallagher PRs.
2) Contrary to many people’s belief, Strikeforce does not receive a 15% revenue on all ACS sales. Strikeforce receives 15% from CSI, a subsidiary of ACS. Because we do not know the agreement between ACS and CSI, Strikeforce only gets a percentage of the 15% percent from CSI. Strikeforce’s Agreement with CSI is explained in the most recent financials. The deal is not with ACS.
I want millions and billions in revenue, just as much as all shareholders. But we need to be realistic to the facts and take Mark’s history in lack of clarity as a grain of salt. IMO.
If this info is not obvious to others, they are either delusional to this fact or are paid to sway others to look the other way.
I think Optimistic Trader and the others on the other board are being a bit too... well... optimistic. The deal is between First Data and ACS. Once ACS gets paid, then CSI gets paid. And then SFOR and CSI’s agreement goes into effect. Remember, SFOR does not have an agreement with ACS. The SFOR agreement is with CSI.
Considering we have never seen more than $500 from the CSI/ACS relationship, clearly the deal between ACS and CSI is so significant that SFOR will see a very small piece, of any, from this.
And if you disagree, prove me wrong. No PR or 8k has been delivered. Therefore, it will not be significant. We are all chasing a ghost at this point.
Baldeagle... you’ve been working your “tail” off but your optimism is a bit flawed. You’re either a pumper (see other board) or dilusional to the facts.
1) no revenues of significance are expected. Proof: no 8k reporting changes to expected financials
2) significant revenues? False. Proof: again, no 8k. And Mark would have posted Q1 financials on time if they were significant.
3) never been a one-trick pony? False. Proof: only win was a settlement with Microsoft. Otherwise, no revenues of significance and no legal wins have come to fruition. If anything, this pony as shown no tricks to date.
4) blocksafe... if the Pre-STO went so well, why would blocksafe be offering equity IN ADDITION to coins for the STO? That does not sound right. Additionally, no marketing on the STO has occurred. Seems pretty odd for something that’s supposed to be YUUUUGE!
This is my opinion backed by DD and facts. I hope you’re right and not just pumping. Bc no one is fooled anymore.
But doesn’t Kay’s tweets count?! Lol. 8k and financials show nothing of what is being hyped.
Amen
Valid question. One in which Mark won’t answer nor the other board has any answers (despite them thinking they do).
IMO the revenues that will be realized in the financials will be underwhelming. As with every deal SFOR has, there is more to it that meets the eye (or shall I say less than what meets the eye)... be it an NDA, additional channels and subsidiaries of channels that will get paid before SFOR, etc. By the time SFOR receives any sort of fee or %, it is always substantially less than what it should be.
For example, in the last financial report, it was shown that SFOR received less than $500 from channel partners. This is despite the other board touting ACS, Alvarez, Caroni (South America and Ecuador deal), Veratad, FlexiP Group (Nigeria partner), Mcafee, DOD, international distribution deals, and Gallagher contracts worth $ millions. Even one poster touted Secure Authority as the next channel partner after the 2/4/19 decision (see post #46081 from 1/4/2019 on the other board). How is that even possible? Some will say it’s bc of the billing cycle for 30/60/90 days and the government was shut down, which caused delays. But this has been going on for 18 years. So that argument is 100% false.
What people won’t mention is where is all the money going? Why does SFOR need to have a contract with ACS’ subsidiary CSI instead of being direct? Why is Bo from ACS touting the $9m sale of our patents yet we have not seen $1 from this? Why is BSAFE a 49% owned subsidiary of SFOR, only receive “fees” from their revenues, despite paying the executives their salaries, pay for all office expenses, and shield the private company? What happened to the money from “sold out” sales from both the US and Canadian tv shopping networks.
And to your point... why would the CEO of SFOR not want to let the world know this is all going on and all the “successful” things going for SFOR... it doesnt make any sense. But someone other than the shareholders are profiting from all of this. As if it was planned that way. My opinion of course. And the pumpers will fight it. But notice in any of the rebuttals that no one can answer the valid questions.
What is there to discuss? You nailed it on the head with this DD. Mark has been dishonest and shareholders will suffer even more. This news is potentially the game-ender as it is clear revenues were never part of the plan.
You’re just as bad as Mark at spinning. Still no mention of CSI.
You speak of revenues yet there is none. You can’t have it both ways. Facts are facts. SFOR has an agreement with CSI, not ACS. You and the squad keep talking ACS. Will be interesting to see how the squad spins this one or what additional “delays” occur in reporting the revs in the financials.
There’s nothing exciting about knowing what SFOR will receive from CSI when knowing what ACS’ deal will be worth. Bc the sfor breadcrumbs that will be left after ACS, George, Mark, and CSI take theirs will be nominal. Nominal at best. And you know this. Hence why you and the squad ignore it and refuse to talk about it.
Do tell! What are you hearing?!
That ACS has a deal but by the time ACS execs and payroll (George and Mark) get paid, then what remains is funneled to CSI, then paid to SFOR, the revenues will be left to what? Do you and the squad forget to talk about CSI or just not allowed to?
In all seriousness and based on our channel partner history, do you actually think sfor will see anything from the breadcrumbs that pass through ACS to CSI to us? History is not on our side nor is following the jubilation from the squad. And yes, I know... 1) don’t listen to message boards and 2) we’ll find out in the financials... like you always say.
Mark should have told Gimli 5-6 years just to buy himself some more kick-the-can time. 2-3 years is a pretty tight window for 18 years of no revenue.
The pending PR will be just as disappointing as all the rest of Mark’s. Based on the info you posted and the CSI relationship, the revenue figure won’t even trigger an 8k release.
All need to embrace themselves for this grand pump that is about to ensue.
Waller has his hands in so many cookie jars he can’t keep it all straight on where his income is coming from. ACS, CSI, Strikeforce, BSAFE, you name it.
Without a doubt there is a backdoor agreeement for Kay to get paid from ACS and CSI success. At least someone is getting paid from ACS and CSI... shareholders certainly aren’t.
The relationship of CSI and ACS is awfully similar to the relationship of Strikeforce and Blocksafe. Private companies with private contracts, both of which screw Strikeforce out of revenue.
ACS gets paid. Must channel through CSI. And then CSI to pay SFOR. Strikeforce has not received a dime from this relationship. Where is the money going that Bo tells the world about from Mcafee and all other relationships? Certainly not to Strikeforce.
Similarly, BSAFE is private, is able to utilize Strikeforce patents for a small fee, and keep all the revenues. And shareholders will never see a dime from it. Why does Strikeforce pay all BSAFE expenses but only receives a “fee” for services? Seems quite backwards.
Mods, pumpers, and dilusionists can try and say otherwise (or delete), but they can’t cover up the truth. This house of cards is starting to show its true shape.
I’d rather be in a room full of ladies than all pumpers talking amongst themselves. You would think it’s all attorneys talking about having a “vote” on if they would rather go to the Supreme Court or not... as if it was up for debate. All these “experts” that have the answers yet SFOR is in the same boat since day 1... no new news, no revenues, and false promises from the CEO. Sounds more like a normal Wednesday in Strikeforce land.
Pug, nor any other members of the Pom Pom squad, will or can answer those channel partner questions. Everyone is thinking it but no one will address and discuss it. And Mark certainly doesn’t respond to my requests to explain it.
The only explanation I have heard from others is that SFOR is waiting for the lawsuits to drop before revenue is received. This is a flawed argument. 1) as a business entity, and a public one for that matter, SFOR cannot bury revenues or accounts receivable. If revenues are there, they are reported in the financials. 2) if revenues are only to be received AFTER lawsuit wins, this could take additional years to receive since these lawsuits are not guaranteed wins yet. 3) if revenues are only to be received AFTER the lawsuit wins, this is implying that SFOR has no current revenue streams through the channel partners and will rely on lawsuit wins, royalties, and more likely fees in order to receive revenue.
Either way you spin it, the revenue discussion is looking worse and worse. And no one will talk about it. Even Mark.
Crickets.
Got deals with ACS and Alvarez too!
Past performance of the stock price is one thing. Past performance of management is another. Gallagher deal, at face value, is a great opportunity. One that SFOR needed. All I’m saying is that revenue proof is going to be required for all to believe it. Just talking about it is what was done in the past.
Amen to that. We have not heard a peep out of the Alvarez relationships. Similar to CSI/ACS. Seems to be a trend with SFOR.
This is the unfortunate truth and exactly why I tweeted it. Follow the money. Because Mark’s words have had no merit in what he has said as revenues still have not come to fruition.
Time to prove it. The excuses have run dry.
Anything worth noting at the meeting? You’ve been around longer than most.
Mark has the Pom Pom squad working overtime tonight. It’s unfortunate no one is falling for the pump anymore. Proof is in the financials. No one is fooled by the “breaking news!”
Breaking news would be Mark issuing financials on time, revenues would actually exist, and the Pom Pom squad didn’t have to pump BS deals that don’t produce any revenue for shareholders.
Proof is in the financials. Mark, Ram, and George bring home $300k+ per year in compensation.
https://www1.salary.com/Mark-L-Kay-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-STRIKEFORCE-TECHNOLOGIES-INC.html
https://www1.salary.com/George-Waller-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-STRIKEFORCE-TECHNOLOGIES-INC.html
Proof is in the financials. Mark, Ram, and George bring home $300k+ per year in compensation.
https://www1.salary.com/Mark-L-Kay-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-STRIKEFORCE-TECHNOLOGIES-INC.html
https://www1.salary.com/George-Waller-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-STRIKEFORCE-TECHNOLOGIES-INC.html
Sounds familiar to the ACS and CSI relationship. Too many hands in the cookie jar and, by payday, revenues will be nominal compared to what they could be if it was direct. It doesn’t add up.
0 point 0% proof. Bank of America seems to be a big enough deal that we would have either seen it in an 8k or PR. But some will say it’s through a channel partner and they can’t disclose. Ok that’s fine because we’ll see it in the financials, right? Not there either.
DD should result in conclusive evidence. Not pure speculation and far-reaching stretches. Which is all anyone has been able to put together thus far.
No one can deny that. And if you do, back it up. Otherwise you’re delusional.
For longs that are puzzled why Sfor supporters like me are questioning the BSAFE setup... it’s because of how it was organized. Here me out:
If BlockSafe was set up as a “brand” or a product category under Strikeforce, just like guardedid and mobile trust, Strikeforce would control the expenses and revenue, thus receiving 100% of the profit. This would result in shareholders reaping 100% the benefits.
But BlockSafe is set up as a private subsidiary which sfor owns 49%. Because it’s private, we as shareholders, do not know how George and Mark are compensated. We only know that we get a monthly “fee” for licensing the Strikeforce patents/products. So much like Strikeforces relationship with ACS and other channel partners in only receiving a percentage of sales, this is the same with BlockSafe (monthly fees). We will not receive 100% of revenues or profits even though BSAFE is using Strikeforce patents. Regardless of the total sales under BSAFE, Strikeforce will only receive its monthly fee.
So what’s the good news? The good news is the wave of publicity BSAFE is getting and it will be a success. Which Strikeforce will see some success from this.
The bad news: shareholders of Strikeforce will not reap the exponential benefit. Regardless of how well BSAFE does, Strikeforce will only receive the monthly fees. Executives will make their compensation/salary/bonuses BEFORE sfor realizes it in their financials. George and Mark are not relying on the success of Strikeforce and will be paid handsomely for the success of BSAFE... as they should. But this will not bode well for the loyal shareholders as more potential revenue is funneled elsewhere, like ACS and the channels.
Just think about it.
I want sfor to be a success. But I think we are putting far too many eggs in the BSAFE basket and should be focused and holding Strikeforce accountable on the deals, revenues, lawsuits, international patent, etc. of Strikeforce.