NEWBIE
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.
Or did you mean the Glassdoor post from 12 days ago?
https://www.glassdoor.com/job-listing/laboratory-director-evio-labs-JV_IC1146665_KO0,19_KE20,29.htm?jl=3033534779
Last sentence: "Be part of the EVIO family, a group of talented people who are driven, embrace change, and our mission to improving quality of life through passion, science & innovation."
You forgot a comma in your post after passion. That changes the meaning.
Do you have a link to this Indeed post? I can't seem to find it. All I see is "There are no open jobs at EVIO currently."
Ref: https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Evio/jobs
If I was here to flip this stock then yes, those are valid points. I am here for the long haul and will wait for the revenues to drive the PPS and not fluffy PRs.
I know there was/is dilution, but that was a necessary evil to get the company expanded quickly.
WW and LG fired him so as to continue to live in dreamland disposing of shareholders like straws.
Sample size will not change. 10lbs as mandated as maximum test size. The price of cannabis has no bearing on testing. 10lbs is 10lbs.
If prices drop then even more people will be inclined to buy vs grow. Which increases sales which means more testing.
People would be more likely to grow their own if the price is high, and buy it if the price is reasonable.
Also, read https://www.denverpost.com/2013/12/23/growing-your-own-marijuana-in-colorado-legal-doesnt-mean-simple/
What percentage of the population grow any of their own food? Cannabis is not easy plant to grow. Water, power, equipment, and time vs price. That does not even look at home grown contaminants.
An Easy Guide to the Cannabis Testing Requirements in California
"The maximum batch size depends on the type of product you are testing. If your marijuana product is flower then it will always be measured in pounds. The maximum weight for a batch tops out at 50 lbs, however for sampling purposes these will broken down into increments of 10 lbs each. Cannabis testing requirements mandate that a minimum of .35% of every batch should be collected for sample testing.
Who cares if the general public knows about EVIO. They do not choose who tests the product or have any bearing on EVIO revenue. Except if they only buy products tested by X company.
The growers and the plant processors are the only ones that need to know who EVIO is. When they have to get their inventories tested there are only a few options. With the lack of certified labs vs the quantities of product, EVIO will there to help spread the load.
What is the requirement for each state. Last I remember in Oregon it was 1 sample tested for every 10lbs of flower AND edibles and oils are tested again. I am not sure about the other states and Canada.
"Willing"? This is mandatory. There is no "willing".
There is not a choice for them. This is required testing that will be enforced by governments that want their cut (taxes). Testing has to be done by an accredited external lab. That is where EVIO comes in.
Debt is debt. Do you think they should not pay themselves back for loans that kept the company from folding?
Accrued salaries and payroll taxes = $1,339,440 (1,347,772 - 8,332)
They also payed down:
Current maturities of convertible notes payable, net
Current maturities of notes payable, net
Accounts payable
They paid bills with their share of the settlement.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=11545964&guid=gsNbUa3Kxe8uR3h
December 31, 2015 - Total Liabilities = $13,813,674
June 30, 2016 - Total Liabilities = $9,392,088
and yes, they have incurred more debt since then. $13,049,640 as of Sept 30, 2018
Wow, thanks. You actually posted verifiable DD. That is all I wanted.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=11141688&guid=sfDbUpikzT6YOth
Effective January 28, 2016, Cyber Safety, finalized the purchase of the option to buy the keystroke encryption patents and Intellectual Property related to the GuardedID Ò and MobileTrust Ò software pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Asset Purchase Agreement for a purchase price of Nine Million Dollars ($9,000,000), which may be paid in the form of a promissory note due by and no later than September 30, 2020. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Asset Purchase Agreement, StrikeForce's license granted to Cyber Safety does not affect or impact existing distributor relationships. StrikeForce, directly and through its distribution channel, will maintain the right to sell in the retail space in perpetuity.
Blocksafe will be paying sfor royalties which then get paid to cybersafety inc.
Sorry brothcheld, Thank you for posting those stories. I have been reading them and I like what the potential results of the mold issue will do for the testing in Canada and the US. Enough end users hear about this (or get sick), the more pressure/demand there will be for enforcement of the testing.
I don't think the labs need to PR anything about them as it will only look like they are pushing the issue for their own benefit.
I have been adding even more because of those stories. Thanks again for posting.
Just my opinions.
HGroup not found in anything recently. Can you post anything that shows they have any contact/business with SFOR after the loan was paid off?
Look, he brought him up again. Since Horton was paid off, he has never been mentioned again in any of the Ks or Qs, yet he keep bringing him up. The only reference now is Hortons resume. Now that is some AWESOME DD.
Sorry, last post today. I will respond tomorrow if needed.
Did you hear the one he has about Bruce Horton. Based on the guys resume he says he basically runs SFOR. He basically gave a loan to SFOR back in 2014 or 2015, SFOR paid the loan off with interest, and now he claims he calls the shots on the lawsuits. Again, based off the guys resume.
Post some facts and I will read them. Making claims without showing what you are referencing is not facts. How you interpret what you see maybe incorrect.
Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts
Eyewitness testimony is fickle and, all too often, shockingly inaccurate
About BlockSafe I don't see anything he has said as inaccurate.
For everything else. Please post the "promise" from a K or Q that you feel is a broken promise.
"kay has never made good on his promises":
There are two deals in the last 10-Q. Do those not count?
Lawsuits are still in play. Do those not count?
Products are in retail sales stores. Does that not count?
We have multiple channel partners. Do they not count?
etc...
Note: Please don't bring up "Where is the money". We will have to wait for that. I know I am not going anywhere.
I have looked at all of those and I take only the Ks and Qs as fact. "connecting the dots and speculating" is what investing is all about. Otherwise you will be "chasing the bus" since you only rely on what has happened and not what could happen.
Yes or No. Did "connecting the dots" allow us to find the Gallagher Affinity deal before it was released on the fins?
I am not sure AON is the 2nd deal or not, but if it is then connecting the dots worked there also. We will have to wait and see. Hey, ask your buddy Horton who the 2nd deal is with and let us know.
I can probably find other examples if you want, but those are two very recent examples of connecting the dots.
Again. The tokens existed when the fins came out, but they had not finished developing them. The statement in the fins is accurate.
I can see the tokens that they have set aside.
Can you be more specific about "sfor should have been more careful of what they said about the tokens and not say they dont have any developed"? Per the financial, there were no developed tokens.
What part of developed do you not understand. It is past tense of developing which is what they were doing when the fins came out.
First, exist and developed mean two different things.
Developed means done developing.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/-ed
"a suffix forming the past tense of weak verbs"
Remember, these are software people. If you look at software development life cycles, a product is not fully developed until it is ready for deployment or sale. The BSAFE tokens were not ready for sale so they are in development and are not developed yet.
I am not sure how I can explain that any differently.
In PRs and in emails you received, they have said they exist and the counts of them, which is verifiable in the earlier URLs.
"Again, more untruthful comments in another SFOR financial." - Nope, just interpreted incorrectly.
In order to sell the coins in the seed, pre-sto and sto they have to "exist". They are still working out all of the details and getting all the legal stuff done. IE they are developing them. When everything is done and they are ready to sell them, they will be developed.
Yes, the percentages don't add up because there are two other uses for them. Please look at https://blocksafetech.io/ for the whole breakdown.
"they change to fit what you think." - No, I am pulling this information directly off of the website. I am not changing anything.
Yes, I see that as a subset of the 120M BSAFE tokens. I am assuming the 8.4m tokens are for the 1% seed round which is probably done.
From https://blocksafetech.io/
120,000,000 Total
Seed Round: 1%
Pre-STO: 37%
STO: 27%
Not sure what you are asking. Your link is only looking at part of the BSAFE tokens. Try this URL:
https://www.rebellious.io/explorer/address/0x14fda3b1e131ad2d40e98cff2722e7d22b96f88e#tab=tab-holders
What do you see that is wrong?
If you remember the exact date of the email, can you find that email and post the link.
Funny, I think we went through this exercise the last time you made this claim.
Ah, got it. I use Fidelity and they just mush them together when the entire buy is completed. Thanks
Just curious, why 3 buys in under 30 seconds vs just one buy?
Do you still have that link? What does it show now? Care to share the link with us?
"He showed me a link with the “real” coins"
Also, the report says there are "no cryptocurrency tokens have been developed". Developed means done developing. So the coins should be in development as of Sept 30. If you read the other information that is not in the fins you will find that the pre-sto and sto were postponed because of technical issues.
Are the coins real, I don't know 100%, but I can wait and find out. Plus there are the 2 other potential revenue streams (lawsuits and deals) and deals have been confirmed in the fins. How big those two deals are we don't know, but the one we know for sure has a huge potential for revenue base on the size of the company the deal is with.
Remember that the software uses a license server. I have not verified but I am assuming that server is SFORs and not a channel partners server. We will know how many copies of the software are being used. Again, I am assuming the server is hosted by SFOR, but that is the way it works for most of the software we use here. (ie, We have a Microsoft partner gets us the quotes and places the orders, but we pay Microsoft for the licenses after that.)
I try not to focus on just one thing with this company. Worth the risk in my opinion.
Are you referring to this? "As of September 30, 2018, BlockSafe had no operating activities and no cryptocurrency tokens have been developed"
When did the pre-sto start?
"That is a fact imo" - in your opinion it is a fact?
Awesome. We just need to sit back and wait then. I know I am not going anywhere.
How is getting paid by someone that is only using your name an "unprofitable business model"?. Please explain.
Nice, lower prices brings more customers, which means more plants to grow, which means more testing.
Or did you mean this to be a bad thing? BOOO profits!!
The future.
Was EVIO involved with the 800k loan? I thought it was a personal loan that WW took out.
I am also assuming his other businesses are doing well if "... this 800K loan with a company losing so much money would really turn the heads of any banker"
So either shady banker or he makes enough elsewhere to afford it.
Just my take on it.
Yes, that is what SFOR pays them and that was voted on and approved by the shareholders in 2016. If shareholders didn't like it they should of sold their stock.
But that has nothing to do with this statement about channel partners. That is what I was asking for proof on, not their SFOR salaries.
Obviouslt the channels have been making some deals , how else does the executives take home sooo much cash lol
And what proof do you have of the "executives take home sooo much cash".
So you are saying there is a "big deal" or are "big deals". Thanks for the clarification.
I have looked at the entire page and I do not see "page views" anywhere on any post page?
So yes, spell it out for me. Where do you see "page views"?