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.
I thought we were the new Facebook? Haven’t heard much about that lately.
It's ok. Only ~560 people saw it, and I'm sure the vast majority of those are people from the Telegram group who don't care.
So it looks like the CEO of your tech company couldn't even get the mic on his computer to work. Honk honk.
It wasn’t related to that. It was just something for people to think about now that we’re talking about a $60 million company and not a $20 million company.
If I'm wrong, then Tautachrome will uplist without any issues. That would be the ideal situation. If Tautachrome doesn't uplist, then there will be questions. That's my point here.
If the market cap increases much further, Tautachrome will have a market cap greater than that of some Russell 3000 components. This will draw a lot of attention to it because it will raise questions such as, "Why is a $100 million company trading on OTC Pink?"
Tautachrome is in a kind of Catch-22 situation right now. They have a $60 million market cap. In order to keep/grow this valuation, they will either have to 1) actually report solid revenue numbers or 2) resort to ever more aggressive and potentially fraudulent communications with current and potential investors (like the kind we've seen recently).
Mgmt desperately needs to keep the valuation at these levels to 1) continue issuing convertible debt and 2) keep shareholders happy. I would not be surprised at all to see civil lawsuits from shareholders in the wake of a large decline in the share price. However, maintaining this valuation without actually improving the fundamentals of the company will force mgmt to do things that will attract a lot of attention. With that attention could come scrutiny. This situation would not exist if Tautachrome could access better sources of financing. Priority #1 should be securing a lower-cost source of financing.
DLM didn’t know what NFTs were until recently but investors now believe he can turn Tautachrome from a failed e-commerce/AR/social media company into a NFT company (bulls can’t even explain what this means). You’d think these ridiculous pivots to new business models every three months would scare away even the most faithful but somehow they haven’t.
OS up another 55 million shares compared to March. Plenty more dilution ahead too.
Also why I’m here. I think what DLM is doing is disgusting. One of those elderly people in the Telegram chat could easily have been one of my grandparents (I actually did have a family member invested for a while). They don’t understand the technology, business models or accounting to know that this is a bad investment. DLM is taking advantage of that information asymmetry. I have no problem with people making very speculative investments that are very likely going to lose them money. I do have a problem with the management of those companies trying to deceive investors about the likelihood that their business succeeds.
Edit: It’s unfair to single out DLM. Jon is equally guilty. He created this clown show and turned it over to DLM. Also should mention Micah too so he doesn’t feel left out.
Not happening. Any tech company could replicate this app for <$250k instead of paying >$60 million for Tautachrome. FAANG also likes to acquire companies for their talent as much as they do for specific products. Tautachrome has no employees.
Also, a change of control would cause most (all?) convertible preferred shares to convert to common shares, so an acquirer would have to pay far more than the current market cap. For example, an acquisition at .02 would cost ~$110 million. And then there is the license agreement.
All of this assumes Tautachrome actually has any value. The fact that it generated just $12 in revenue from its primary business last quarter is pretty strong evidence that it doesn’t.
They convert automatically. However, Jon owns most of these shares and has ~25% to 40% of the voting power of all share classes, so he could simply vote to withhold their conversion to some later date. It doesn’t really matter. They can be converted back into ~1.1 billion common shares at some point. You also have the preferred shares owned by Arknet that can be converted into ~290 million common shares. Then you have all the convertible debt on the balance sheet as of 12/31/20. Then you have the convertible debt issued in February. This company needs access to better sources of financing very soon or common shareholders are going to be diluted into oblivion. To do this, Tautachrome should uplist. But I doubt it’s even possible for Tautachrome to uplist with the license agreement, other related party transactions, errors on SEC filings, shell risk, etc. It’s definitely in the best interest of shareholders to uplist, but DLM will continue to make excuses for why Tautachrome isn’t working on it.
It’s not speculation. It’s currently the only way Tautachrome can finance its cash burn. This is what happens when your main product only generates $12 in revenue in the last quarter.
Some insiders converted their commons into preferred shares trick people who don’t actually read financial statements. Those preferred shares automatically convert back to common shares this October. Will add ~1.1 billion to the OS.
And all the press releases, positive tweets and gifs don’t change the fact that the primary business for this company generated just $12 in revenue last quarter. Nobody ever wants to look at the financials. Everyone wants to just close their eyes while DLM tells them how bright the future will be. If he was a good manager, he would be well on his way to creating that future. Instead, you have $12 in revenue last quarter. Anyone know how much NexTech did in revenue last quarter? More than $4 million. And NexTech is younger than Tautachrome.
Ok since you love arguing semantics we can replace “nobody” in that sentence with <10 people. It doesn’t change the point. Main Street did $12 in revenue last Q. That’s all the evidence you need that their is very little interest in their platform.
Buying companies that are going bankrupt has been the wrong move over time.
No it’s better to hold cash than invest in a company headed for bankruptcy.
Yeah just like Main Street Shopping revenues? Or revenues from all the business Arks? DLM knew nothing about NFTs a month ago. Just yesterday he was asking about the costs of listing NFTs on various marketplaces. So he’s totally clueless. There are already NFT marketplaces in existence, so, once again, Tautachrome will be late to market with a cheap knockoff product that nobody will use. Just like Main Street Shopping and their unusable social media platform that appears to have failed to even get off the runway.
I’ve already gone over why Tautachrome is different from these companies at that state in their development. The biggest difference is that these companies had actual management teams and actual employees. You guys just have DLM, a penny stock promoter who has zero ability to manage an internet company. That’s why Main Street Shopping did just $12 in revenue last quarter. That’s why this company is over four years old, but there is no end to dilution in sight.
Ah yes. I see now. Tautachrome has completely failed to generate more revenue than some of the lemonade stands I’ve seen around my neighborhood because they’ve been too busy watching and waiting for the right time. That’s one of the worst arguments I’ve ever heard.
The best time to start and e-commerce site was twenty years ago. The best time to start a social media platform was fifteen years ago. Tautachrome shareholders don’t have time. They’re in a race against dilution that they’ve been losing badly.
Ok I’ll try using a list this time.
1. The patents don’t cover everything that the way bulls think they cover.
2. If they did cover everything that bulls think they cover, Tautachrome could sue competitors for patent infringement.
3. There is zero evidence of any litigation arising from these patents.
Therefore, the fact that there is no evidence of litigation indicates that there is no patent infringement. This supports statement #1.
This entire NFT/patent discussion is a gigantic distraction from the fact that Main St Shopping is a spectacular failure and management has no idea how to successfully execute any of its ideas. On top of that, Tautachrome is forecasting higher cash burn in 2021, as management throws money in random directions.
I think its about DLM paying their patent attorney to say that Tautachrome's patent is kinda sorta related to NFTs depending on the definition of some of the terms here. I didn't see anywhere that anyone is threatening litigation against anyone else.
Link?
It doesn’t appear anyone is infringing upon Tautachrome’s patents. Tautachrome doesn’t own the ethereum blockchain or digital watermarking. Other companies have been involved in these things since before Tautachrome existed. I highly doubt there will be any lawsuits.
Tautachrome will sell more convertible debt, so shareholders will be bearing the costs of any lawsuits.
Let me explain what directors are supposed to do. Directors are supposed to represent the interests of shareholders. They're supposed to monitor the company/management. Now, do you trust someone who has committed securities fraud to represent your interests?
Aasim Saied is an independant director so no issues.
Read the case I linked. It should have been disclosed.
Looks like they forgot to update this section. https://dfpi.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/337/2020/05/D-R-Akyumen-Technologies-Corp.pdf
Involvement in Certain Legal Proceedings
Except as noted herein or below, during the last ten years none of our directors or officers have:
1.
had any bankruptcy petition filed by or against any business of which such person was a general partner or executive officer either at the time of the bankruptcy or within two years prior to that time;
2.
been convicted in a criminal proceeding or subject to a pending criminal proceeding;
3.
been subject to any order, judgment, or decree, not subsequently reversed, suspended or vacated, of any court of competent jurisdiction, permanently or temporarily enjoining, barring, suspending or otherwise limiting his involvement in any type of business, securities or banking activities;
4.
been the subject of any order, judgment or decree, not subsequently reversed, suspended or vacated, of any Federal or State authority barring, suspending or otherwise limiting for more than 60 days the right of such person to engage in securities or banking activities, or to be associated with persons engaged in any such activity;
5.
been found by a court of competent jurisdiction in a civil action or by the Commission to have violated any Federal or State securities law, and the judgment in such civil action or finding by the Commission has not been subsequently reversed, suspended, or vacated;
6.
been found by a court of competent jurisdiction in a civil action or by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to have violated any Federal commodities law, and the judgment in such civil action or finding by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has not been subsequently reversed, suspended or vacated;
7.
been the subject of, or a party to, any Federal or State judicial or administrative order, judgment, decree, or finding, not subsequently reversed, suspended or vacated, relating to an alleged violation of: (i) Any Federal or State securities or commodities law or regulation; or (ii) Any law or regulation respecting financial institutions or insurance companies including, but not limited to, a temporary or permanent injunction, order of disgorgement or restitution, civil money penalty or temporary or permanent cease-and-desist order, or removal or prohibition order; or (iii) Any law or regulation prohibiting mail or wire fraud or fraud in connection with any business entity; o
8.
been the subject of, or a party to, any sanction or order, not subsequently reversed, suspended or vacated, of any self-regulatory organization, any registered entity, or any equivalent exchange, association, entity or organization that has disciplinary authority over its members or persons associated with a member.
Alright just skimmed the annual report. It's littered with errors.
We had negative cash flows from operations of $90,344. During the year ended December 31, 2020, the Company used net cash of $910,344 in operating activities
Subject to the success of the Company’s financing activities, we expect to increase operating activities in the coming year with a concomitant increase in the Company’s monthly burn rate
On July 21, September 2 and December 10, 2020, we issued three convertible promissory notes in the aggregate amount of $660,000, receiving $600,000 in proceeds. The notes mature on July 27, September 2 and December 10, 2021 and bear interest at 8% (24% default rate). They are convertible at 63% of the lowest closing bid price during the twenty days preceding the conversion.
In February, 2021, we issued a convertible promissory note in the amount of $220,000, receiving $200,000 of proceeds.
As of March 17, 2021, we issued 123,131,169 common shares in partial retirement of a convertible note.
4122 last month—>4190 now. That’s dilution
Which is illegal. Putting out a press release that discloses market moving news that’s not true or doesn’t have a legitimate basis in truth is market manipulation. This company has been on very thin ice with regard to the legality of its press releases. If it weren’t a penny stock I’d imagine that they would not be able to continue filing these releases. DLM and Jon had better hope they don’t end up with a disgruntled investor base that decides to file a lawsuit, because I think there’s enough material here for some kind of case.
So you’re saying the OTCMarkets website is wrong? OS is up. That’s a fact.
And the OS was just updated on OTCMarkets. Congratulations longs, dilution is back.
The NFTs use the ethereum blockchain. Tautachrome doesn’t own the ethereum blockchain. Anybody can make and sell NFTs on this blockchain without a patent. This patent is like patenting your bread recipe. It’s stupid. It doesn’t stop anyone from making bread.
Tautachrome doesn’t own the ethereum blockchain, so nobody would need to partner with Tautachrome for this. Again, I don’t think you really understand this patent and how it relates to NFTs.
No. They're just pretending that their digital watermarking patents (which don't protect anything of importance because there are a million ways to create digital watermarks) somehow make them a leader in the NFT space. Nobody even knows what this means, but everyone is desperate promote this idea that Tautachrome was some kind of NFT business before it was cool. Nobody ever asks, "How do you plan to actually make money from that?"
At least we have a nice distraction from the awful 10-K that will be released any time now.
Every time I think I've seen the last ridiculous pump that will result in exactly $0 in revenue, I'm proven wrong.
This company has no idea how to monetize NFTs (that's the whole point of them in the first place: eliminate the middleman), and I doubt DLM had even heard of them a month ago.
Also, these kinds of PRs attract very short term investors. You're getting all the momentum chasing fad investors. Good luck keeping them around once the momentum runs out or the next cryptocurrency or scam biotech comes along.
It’s a scam until it earns money.
So give me a timeline then. Or are you just fine with this company slowly bleeding cash forever? How many shares will be issued in the next year? In the next three years? You don’t have forever. You’re being diluted into oblivion.