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.
So Tautachrome has no real board? There’s no oversight?
That’s a pretty bad situation.
Yeah, you’re right. That is what board members do for real companies. But this isn’t a real company. Its just a scheme dressed up as a real company. It has no employees. It has no serious product. It has no office. It doesn’t have a real management team. So it only makes sense that it doesn’t have a real board.
He’s on their board. Do you know what board members (are supposed to) do? They act on behalf of shareholders to steer the company and provide oversight.
So you’ve entrusted a convicted fraudster to monitor and provide direction for Tautachrome.
I agree. It won’t impact Tautachrome. Arknet is so bad it doesn’t matter if it’s installed on every device on the planet. Nobody is going to use it, and it will never allow Tautachrome to become profitable.
It’s hilarious watching the bulls dismiss this. When there’s good news like Akyumen preloading Arknet on all its phones, it’s cheered on as a major positive development. When there’s bad news like Akyumen turning out to be a scam, it’s dismissed as unimportant.
Which is it? Do you see the contradiction here? Good news is good news but bad news doesn’t matter.
The point is that Aasim is one more red flag to add to the many, many red flags. I can understand dismissing a red flag or two, but there are dozens here.
I’ve repeatedly said Aasim was a fraud and his business was fake.
DLM and Jon are Tautachrome. They have almost half of the voting power. They also have a history of making unilateral decisions without consulting shareholders. DLM and Jon could remove Aasim immediately.
Don’t let DLM play dumb and act like he doesn’t have the power to remove Aasim. He does and he should.
But I doubt he will.
I’m saying that DLM never “put up his own money.”
The evidence that he never purchased shares is in his Form 3 and the 10-Ks that show common shares given to “consultants” during the period that DLM was a “consultant.”
There’s no evidence he ever bought shares, so the burden of proof is on him.
Why would you believe DLM? Lying benefits him financially. He has an incentive to lie to you, and he’s done it before. His word is meaningless. The financial statements tell us everything we need to know.
Again, there is zero evidence that DLM has ever spent a single dime of his own to purchase common shares. There is evidence that he was given shares in exchange for “consulting” services.
If I were a shareholder, I’d challenge him to put his money where his mouth is and actually purchase some commons WITH HIS OWN MONEY.
Now you’re moving the goalposts. You said he personally “put up his money.” I said he didn’t. Now you changed your argument to, “He hasn’t received any cash payments.” That’s a completely different argument.
There’s no record of DLM purchasing shares. He owns shares, but those were likely given as compensation for “consulting services.”
Also notable that his form 3 was filed late.
It’s not semantics. If you didn’t purchase common shares yourself at market prices, you didn’t “put up your money.”
DLM didn’t put up his money. Tautachrome shareholders put up money for him. He wins. You lose.
We have zero record of DLM ever buying shares with his own money.
None.
If he wants to prove he has skin in the game, he should buy shares at their current market price with his own money. He hasn’t done that.
Neither DLM or Jon have “put up their own money”.
DLM got shares in exchange for his work as a “consultant”. DLM and Jon both have convertible instruments/preferreds that convert at significant discounts.
It’s interesting that DLM won’t buy shares with his own money. Even when the price was .0025 last spring, DLM wasn’t buying.
Theyre not risking their money the same way you are.
Define toxic debt.
Because I would call convertible notes with 5% interest rates that convert at 63% of the lowest closing bid over the last 20 days pretty toxic.
DLM and Jon make money by loaning Tautachrome money at incredibly high rates through convertible debt and the licensing agreement. Honeycomb makes money from Tautachrome from development costs.
DLM, Jon and Honeycomb make money regardless of what happens while common shareholders bear all the risk. It’s deeply unfair to common shareholders.
They were extinguished by being converted into shares. That’s what extinguished means in this context. Read their 10-Qs.
Two notes were converted to shares. If the third note was also converted in Q1, there was an error on their 10-Q. If the third note was converted in Q2, DLM should not have disclosed that on Telegram. However, another note was sold in the second quarter, so we still have two large notes outstanding at the end of Q1. They probably sold another in Q2, so I’m guessing there will be three large notes outstanding in the BS at the end of Q2 or two if the third was converted in Q2.
Plus the 180 million shares SRAX will be selling.
Plus the 280 million shares that will be issued upon conversion of Arknet’s preferreds.
Plus the roughly 1 billion shares that will be issued upon the conversion of Jon Leonard’s preferreds.
Plus the 90 million shares that will be issued upon the conversion of the Nugent’s preferreds.
Plus the 250 million share that will be issued upon the conversion of Staker’s preferreds.
Plus the fact that Tautachrome will, barring some kind of miracle, continue to sell convertible notes as it is continuing to burn through cash.
Add all of this together and you have a nightmarish amount of dilution.
Amazon was loved by investors. It never had issues raising capital. Tautachrome is struggling so badly to raise money it has to pay $2 million to a another company just to try to pump its own share price. It’s only access to capital is through expensive convertible debt. It can’t get a traditional loan, and PE won’t touch it. Amazon never had these problems.
Amazon had operational issues because it grew so quickly. Tautachrome doesn’t have operational issues because it barely has operations.
I’ll rephrase this. Amazon grew revenue and users so quickly that it struggled to fill orders. Tautachrome has grown revenue and users so slowly that it’s still generating less revenue than most lemonade stands and active users are so embarrassingly low that DLM won’t disclose them.
If you call $20K a week in revenues just months after launching its website “struggling”, then what do you call $35 in revenue in a single quarter?
I’m really not understanding your argument here. You said Tautachrome will be successful if they continue executing the way they have been but said Amazon was struggling in its early days despite the fact that it grew both revenue and users very quickly. It seems like you’re holding Tautachrome to an incredibly low standard where revenue and user growth don’t matter.
They won’t be successful if they continue along their current course. They aren’t meaningfully growing revenue or users.
Amazon was doing $20,000 in sales a WEEK just months after it’s launch. Main St is struggling to do $20 a month after one year.
Main St Shopping won’t be successful. If it had the potential to be a successful e-commerce platform, it would’ve gained some traction by now. It hasn’t. DLM burned $1 million in shareholders cash to build a platform that did ~$100 in revenue in the past year. I really don’t know how you can define this any other way than as a failure.
I would consider a platform that generated less than $100 in revenue in a year to be a failure.
Could you tell me how you define failure? I think your understanding of the word may be a little different from mine.
Main St. has failed.
No update on Boston University.
Doesn’t appear that the First American deal ever helped increase the number of businesses using Main St.
Don’t know what happened to that guy who was hired as a consultant to help grow Main St.
No word on $50 million Arknet was supposedly raising.
No word on any other businesses interested in licensing any patents.
Still has no employees.
Diluting shareholders with $2 million in new stock to pay another firm to pump the share price.
And these are just the failures of the last year.
They’ve been advertising Main St. Shopping for almost a year now. They launched the Main St. vs. Wall St. campaign last September. They had interviews every weekend on that radio station in south Florida for months. They partnered with multiple chambers of commerce.
And yet Main St. Shopping has only generated tens of dollars of revenue.
A lot of people haven’t sold yet because they’re down a lot. People are risk seeking with losses and risk averse with gains. This is a well understood behavioral finance phenomenon that is associated with prospect theory. It explains why investors will quickly sell investments that have increased in value while bagholding their losing investments for very long periods of time. Those losses are psychologically painful to realize.
This explains why every rally in $TTCM is accompanied by massive selling that drives the price back down in a matter of days. Trapped longs are eager to get out as soon as they see a small gain or even a price that allows them to recover their cost basis. There are a lot of disillusioned longs that no longer believe in this company that are just waiting for the next pump to exit.
The other question that I’m surprised nobody has raised is why is Tautachrome working so hard to grow its shareholder base and find new investors when ARknet is supposedly raising $50 million to fund its operations? It’s paying $2 million in shares to do this. If ARknet is raising $50 million, then why does Tautachrome need to continue financing its operations with very expensive convertible debt?
The only answer I can see is that that ARknet hasn’t raised anything and that press release was misleading.
The crazy thing is that it is a public company.
They’ve paid SRAX $2 million in shares to pump the price. You can try to dress it up as “advertising” or “promotion,” but SRAX is promoting Tautachrome as an INVESTMENT not their products. If the target of promotion is a company or its shares and not its product, it’s pumping. Hopefully that clears it up for everyone.
Don’t worry. There is going to be some major pumping going on soon. I thought it would have happened two weeks ago to prevent the conversion of the 7/27 convertible note from converting at a lower price but I guess not. Doesn’t really matter. There are a lot of shares out there between SRAX and all the convertible notes that are going be sold. DLM really needs to pump up the price and volume to prevent those sales from driving $TTCM much lower.
Explain how they will monetize this.
The 8-K is all spin.
The 8-K doesn’t matter. It provides no details. It’s intentionally vague because the details are not pretty.
SRAX describes themself as a “stock promoter” that is “not objective or independent” and has “multiple conflicts of interest”.
Tautachrome is paying $2 million for a stock promoter to pump their shares and nobody really seems to be alarmed.
This is an opportunity for you to sell.
SRAX is telling you that Tautachrome is a garbage company that they’re being paid to pump. They’re telling you that it’s “highly probable” that you will lose money by purchasing $TTCM.
What part about this is not alarming to you?
This is not a “typical disclosure.”
Most disclosure say something to the extent of “this investment may lose value.”
The language provided here states that “it is highly probable that an investor will lose most, if not all, of his or her investment.”
“May” and “it is highly probable” have very different meanings.
Anyone who wants to verify just how unusual this is can go onto the iShares website or any other provider of similar products and read the disclosures. You won’t see this kind of language. Does anyone have any questions?
It’s not a crypto company. They’re just tokens. Not a cryptocurrency. It’s a digital version of Chuck E Cheese providing tokens for their customers. It doesn’t appear that you’ll be able to use it outside Arknet just like you’re not able to use Chuck E Cheese tokens outside of Chuck E Cheese.
I’ll have to do a little research.
This whole situation seems more and more malicious and less stupid the more I get into it.
Oh so we can only discuss something once now? Because I’ve never heard this story before and ir sounds pretty interesting.