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.
Agree sorc92.
This is peanuts. Hope the change is used for marketing. Really need to get the word out. Need to complete the workable version of KlickZie, for sure! Not later, NOW!!!
Heck, my ridiculous son-in-law just bought a Cadillac before Christmas for $93 thousand. Spendthrift!
"Because our super hero mad scientist creating all this wonderful tech, can't write an app."
We don't want him to. We really don't want him "creating ALL this wonderful tech." That is not how things work in the real world. Inventors/originators create the idea or concept, create a portion of the invention and then get other techies/specialists to finish the pieces. The inventor maintains oversight, of course.
If, repeat if...TTCM has delegated the app creation to Honeycomb.Digital, as another poster posted two days ago, then that is the best tact to take. Outsourcing to experts like Honeycomb brings their critique to the entire process (exposes problems the originators never envisioned). Get a better finished product from their involvement.
If, repeat if...Honeycomb is actually involved, it tells us a couple of things. One, they wouldn't have gotten involved, at all, unless they thought there is a buildable app probability and, further, that this technology - never seen before - will work. Two, they probably can do things in terms of end product user friendliness that TTCM can't. Three, once successfully completed, Honeycomb, itself, will have a number of existing clients that might be interested in the technology, helping along the marketing, etc.
Personally I hope Honeycomb becomes a structural partner in TTCm/KlickZie. All of this is contingent, of course, on the post about Honeycomb's involvement being true.
IMO
For those interested, here is the website for Honeycomb.Digital out of Magnolia, Texas (note: i.e., if this is the same Company as noted in the post yesterday) -
http://honeycomb.digital
On their home page, at bottom, they are showing MAJOR companies as "clients."
Actually, a good question. Bitcoin not backed by anything, and many think it will implode. The KlickZie white paper actually repeats this idea (that has been stated by others).
The difference with a KLK token is that a KlickZie app, if developed, will support the cryptocurrency so as to make the the KLKs "value-based." In theory, anyway. For me, I'm waiting on our country to declare this stuff illegal, since its not "legal tender." (Read the statement on the front of your US $1 bill). But don't think that will happen now. Drug dealers and terrorists, and folks in Venezuela, apparently love this new invention.
This statement posted yesterday was interesting:
"Our imagery hosting partner, Honeycomb Digital, is working feverishly to implement an experimental KlickZie web app that will capture KlickZie imagery ownership and will initially be accessible exclusively to token holders."
So, we will be eligible for KLK "tokens" on MLK Day. Australian timing.
As a stockholder in TTCM, I sure want them to succeed.
And, to be fair, they are in new territory (i.e., just a "distribution" to stockholders "of record" is a time-consuming, accuracy-dependent endeavor that involves multiple parties - any distribution won't be quick).
But things are sure slopp(-ier) in OTC Land!
That is encouraging.
Now, can anybody reconcile the statements below for me (could be I'm just reading them wrong):
11/15/2017 - (this PR says we get the tokens BEFORE sale date)
"Distribution of KLK Cryptotokens to TTCM Shareholders
The Company believes that a free distribution of a portion of the KLK cryptotokens to Tautachrome shareholders in advance of the token sale will serve two purposes."
11/29/2017 - (this PR says we get the tokens AT the sale date)
"Of the 20% of KLKs (200 million) distributed to Tautachrome shareholders, 100 million will be distributed to our 1,500+ common shareholders and convertible promissory noteholders during the period of the Cryptotoken sales,..."
12/05/2017 - (this PR says we get the tokens AFTER the sale date of Jan. 15th)
"As also announced, the Company has reserved 100,000,000 KLK cryptotokens to distribute to its common shareholders and its convertible promissory noteholders roughly in synchrony with these four planned offerings, with a 25% chunk of the 100,000,000 cryptotokens distributed to shareholders who are “of record on the Record date” of January 16, 2018, As also announced, the Company has reserved 100,000,000 KLK cryptotokens to distribute to its common shareholders and its convertible promissory noteholders roughly in synchrony with these four planned offerings, with a 25% chunk of the 100,000,000 cryptotokens distributed to shareholders who are “of record on the Record date” of January 16, 2018,..."
Appreciate the encouraging post. But...
...this is beyond understanding: "No one on the Tautachrome team owes any shareholder anything."
When you enter the securities markets, by law, you owe the shareholders EVERYTHING.
Gracias. And, you are making an important point here with that reference. A simple KlickZie app that is "functional," even though clearly not a finished product, (1) would satisfy the question of whether or not the technology works; and, (2) because such an event is "material," it not only should be revealed, but probably has to be PR'd. Because it hasn't been PR'd to date, the simple app is not yet functioning. Or, so it would follow...
Crunch time, baby!
Question for Grand.
Could you go thru your statement below:
"4: Revolutionary Platform Klickzie Light getting launched also prior to Cryptotoken offering."
Where this info came from; and what is "KlickZie Light?"
Gracias.
OK, that's good.
This is old news, but may be worth repeating -
In the draft white paper, dated October 23, 2017, it says: "In 6 months, a minimum useable KlickZie system will be available for beta test." Then, in around 10 months, everything should be functioning, hopefully correctly. That would be around August, 2018.
That would put a testable KlickZie system in place sometime in April, 2018.
Also, the draft white paper states the advantage of the KLK crypto token, as follows: KlickZie's KLK cryptotoken is a value-based crypto token." This, it emphasizes, is an advantage over Bitcoin, and other cryptocurrencies, that will inevitably implode.
However, in the Press Release, dated November 29, 2017, it says: "At some point after the first offering, the distributed KLKs may become tradeable on one or more of the various cyryptomarkets. At that point crypto market activity will determine the value and liquidity of KLK crypto tokens."
IOWs, KLK cryptotokens will not be "value based." At least not at that time, anyway, since the KlickZie system will need another 8 months, as projected, to be up and functioning.
IMO, I wish they wouldn't offer the cryptotokens until the "system" is viable. This may get unwanted attention from the SEC, in the interim. I guess the sale of KLKs is intended to fund the development of the KlickZie system, and they need the money to do so, since the F50 arrangement didn't materialize.
(OTOH, maybe things have changed since the issuances - would be nice to know the true story).
A little (more) patience.
TTCM has a commitment date of January 16th, about 25 days out. KlickZie app has to be ready PRIOR to that, for obvious reasons (final testing, PRs, etc.).
If TTCM pushes its crypto currency without KlickZie process ready, then it will be a form of fraud. No other way to see this, IMO. If someone can see that situation any differently, please tell us why...
So, after all this wasted time, why not give them the benefit of less than 4 weeks more, and see what we got. There will have to be PRs written, and issued, prior to the middle of January. Could be some excitement forthcoming. IMO, enhanced SEC oversight of crypto currency industry is a good thing...means get your act in order, upfront.
That's Great news, thanks Huggy Bear.
This news, prior to January 16th launch, will encourage TTCM to stop its venture into this area, if they can't become compliant ready. Or, get them to beef up their compliance efforts, if needed. And, eliminate crypto currency competition to TTCM, if TTCM is legit and compliant, and proceeding.
As an investor in TTCM, I hope the SEC triples down on their regulations and oversight. It's needed. Good timing here.
Question shylo14: so, why would TTCM not establish a video-sharing website, call it something like KlickZie-land, where the creators/consumers can be directed to (and KNOW they will receive advertising $'s)? My apologies if that concept is already in the white paper.
And, it looks like this "system" could usurp YouTube, among others. True?
TIA
Stated fairly.
And I will also give you this - you (and I and others) never bought this stock to gain entry into crypto currency. That wasn't part of the deal, that I know of. So, its not fair for TTCM to think we current stockholders should have had an understanding of that industry.
Earlier in year when I emailed TTCM, they did respond in kind, and indicated matters were still progressing with F50. Unlike you, perhaps, and mainly because of their responses to my emails, I thought then and still do that they were telling the truth. But now we see it clearly didn't work out as they and us had hoped.
I like the bold move by TTCM (OK, maybe because they had no other choice!) and will wait until end of January 2018 before I stay or fold the tent here. I think the statement by another poster that TTCM must have their software finished before January 16th kickoff is logical. But, I understand your pessimism.
GLTU
Greetings, finally back. Illness in family, glad to say situation has surprisingly much improved. Can't say the same for this stock, looks like trying to die off. I will email Mr. Smart again, and see if he wants to say something.
Received email from Richard Sharp.
PRs (note: plural, but I don't know how many) have been written, but not yet ready for publication. Will be published this month (Sept). I do not know the topics.
He also referred me to info existing on the ENCC website regarding a question I asked him. Will research and post on here.
My my...have received some "interesting" private messages.
This because I have encouraged Superheated gas to pursue his/her best interest by having Super's attorney friend call CEO Smith. As Super stated first, Super was thinking about doing this in 2018.
Not that I mind the PMs, but to clarify - my own position hasn't changed. I haven't bought any of this stock in 7 years. I have no plans to buy any going forward. This Spring, I sold millions of my existing shares at a return that was far above my initial investment 7 years ago. I have no plans to sell any of my existing millions of shares, but to see what happens, say about a year from now. So, I want to see PGPM actually draw to an inside straight, and for the stock to surge. If they don't, I'll wait for the re-sell that will inevitably happen about 7 years from now. How did someone say it on here, "wash, rinse, repeat."
The situation for Super, and many others, is much different. Waiting any more than 60 to 90 days will further dim their already poor chances of recovering something through legal means. Plus, right now they have some leverage...to get information, to make mgmt talk to you, and to gather the kinds of facts that would help support your (collective) case if a lawsuit needs to be pursued. And, the odds are it likely needs to be. IOWs, few suspects have taken the boat across the Gulf, so far, so now is the time to be aggressive. If Super has an atty friend that will help for free, why not try to do whatever can be done at this point?
Yes.
Remember, the company and board, personally or corporately, do not want a lawsuit. You have leverage. Especially now while they are attempting a restart. So, your attorney will make it clear from the get-go that you require full and on-going cooperation. Or, he/she starts rounding up other stockholders.
I will PM you with a list of documents./subjects I suggest you will want disclosed to you, for preliminaries.
Super -
Please don't wait until "2018." Contact your attorney friend(s) and let him/her make a call to the CEO, and find out what you can about what's supposedly going on. MO only but we will know within 60 days if there is even the remotest chance (<1%) of salvaging this hydra-handed company. (It grows back a new outreached hand every 7 years, LOL!)..
Irrelevant and an empty threat.
BF Borgers undoubtedly had their accounting and legal teams pre-review their services for conformity with applicable rules and regulations. This isn't something just offered now, but in place for years. Or just offered by them. You are right, the subject matter is moot, but for different reasons than you stated.
I still maintain one of the real culprits here is the CPA firm, Bulloch, et al. who performed the "compilation" financials. Reading the AICPA procedures for this type of financial reporting, I was surprised to see the fairly vigorous standards that must be in effect before this style can be used. It is not simply the CEO telling the accountant what to put down. There are considerable responsibilities on the CPA to make sure it can be used, or else refrain from the engagement altogether. The standards are significantly more vigorous than typically portrayed on this board.
Really, Janice? Who ignored you?!!!
You were responding to one of MY posts. I replied by showing you a non-audit service provided by BF Borgers CPAs, presented on their public website.
Now, you both say this possible service offered by Borgers is some impairment of its responsibilities to be independent. You could be right.
But I just went through the Commission's Rule on this subject and can't find the infraction. This is what I did find:
(4) Non-audit services. An accountant is not independent if, at any point during the audit and professional engagement period, the accountant provides the following non-audit services to an audit client:
(i) Bookkeeping or other services related to the audit client's accounting records or financial statements.
(A) Any service involving:
(1) Maintaining or preparing the audit client's accounting records;
(2) Preparing the audit client's financial statements that are filed with the Commission or form the basis of financial statements filed with the Commission; or
(3) Preparing or originating source data underlying the audit client's financial statements.
(B) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(4)(i)(A) of this section, the accountant's independence will not be impaired when the accountant provides these services:
(1) In emergency or other unusual situations, provided the accountant does not undertake any managerial actions or make any managerial decisions; or
(2) For foreign divisions or subsidiaries of an audit client, provided that:
(i) The services are limited, routine, or ministerial;
(ii) It is impractical for the foreign division or subsidiary to make other arrangements;
(iii) The foreign division or subsidiary is not material to the consolidated financial statements;
(iv) The foreign division or subsidiary does not have employees capable or competent to perform the services;
(v) The services performed are consistent with local professional ethics rules; and
(vi) The fees for all such services collectively (for the entire group of companies) do not exceed the greater of 1% of the consolidated audit fee or $10,000.
So, this impropriety doesn't fall under any of these items above. I certainly may have missed something, it's only a gazillion pages long. But, if you can find where Borgers is not permitted to help its clients walk through government-speak, and relentless government-style forms, please show us. Then, we can group-call Borgers and let them know they are in trouble...
Managements usually stay quiet until the audit is completed.
What was just published was actually pushing the envelope a bit. What the shareholders now know is important: The audit has not been terminated and will be completed, or so we are told. Management is also claiming the company will continue on. Apparently, they have a reverse merger mindset.
No quitting so far. We will see.
Of course they do,,,
This is from BFBorgers own website:
"In addition to regular recurring PCAOB services, we perform filing "catch-up," SEC communication consulting, and initial filing services."
"The audit means absolutely NOTHING. The ONLY THING that counts is 100% absolution by the SEC,..."
Chartmaster isn't off base here. And, frankly, neither am I. BF Borgers would be advising PGPM management in any communications with the SEC. That's part of what these firms do.
For the rest following here -
ENCC published their Q2 results on Aug 15th. You can pull up the data off OTCMarkets. ENCC is showing quarterly net income of $12k, derived from gross quarterly revenues of $150k. The balance sheet remains "thin."
The company's equity position can also be found in the Q2; look for the quarterly under "financials."
Everyone should care about the audit.
(1) In the small chance management turns this around, they will rely on the details of the audit to effect corrective actions; and to continue with audited financials going forward.
(2) In the greater chance they can't save the Titanic, a comprehensive, independent, CPA-quality audit would be the roadmap for a potential stockholders' lawsuit. It could also be the basis for bringing in the prior CPA firm as a co-defendant. And possibly others. If no lawsuit, could be utilized for criminal charges against someone.
If it doesn't get finished, see (2) above. If it is not disclosed, see (2) above.
It is the only treasure trove of information, here in this land of limited disclosures and assets.
Is the SEC required, subsequent to their Order, to issue anything, one way or the other?
Don't know, but haven't seen that yet. This is, in part, what the SEC writes about suspensions:
"Will trading automatically resume after ten days? It depends on the market where the stock trades. Different rules apply in different markets.
For stocks that quote in the OTC market (which includes stocks quoted on the Bulletin Board and OTC Link (f/k/a Pink Sheets)), quoting does not automatically resume when a ten-day suspension ends. Before OTC stock quoting can resume after a suspension period, SEC regulations require a broker-dealer to review specific information about the company in accordance with Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11 and FINRA Rule 6432. If a broker-dealer does not have confidence that a company's financial statements are reasonably current and accurate in all material respects, especially in light of the questions that may have been raised by the SEC suspension action, then a broker-dealer may not publish a quote for the company's stock. The OTC markets function through dealer systems where only broker-dealers may quote and facilitate trading in OTC stocks.
In contrast to stocks that trade in the OTC market, stocks that trade on an exchange resume trading as soon as an SEC suspension ends."
Super - we all have to wait a bit longer for clarity...
The Nickster posted this a few days ago: "there is a little behind the scenes twist going on."
And, for me, I'm waiting to see outcome of CPA audit. Whether it gets completed, or not; and if it does, what does it say? (or, what is disclosed).
Then ???
Nickster!
I didn't quite get this thing with the free shares or humanitarianism - sounds interesting. Could someone go through all of it again?
No, its never that clean, even with Compilation-style reporting.
AICPA Compilation Procedures require that:
.16 The accountant should withdraw from the engagement and inform management of the reasons for withdrawing if (Ref: par. .A17–.A18)
a. the accountant is unable to complete the engagement because management has failed to provide records, documents, explanations, or other information, including signicant judgments, as requested,...
PGPM has not keep satisfactory records or documents. The CPA firm knows this. Or, at the very least, should have known this. One case in point, the significant discreptioncy in O/S balances, dates to 2008. The CPA firm that compiled the compilation report is the same firm that was preparing reports back in 2008, when the O/S balance allegedly changed.
Further, there is a serious question regarding the "independence" of the CPA firm in question, given the previous management activities of one of its principals, and the fact it is the current CPA firm involved with reporting for the parent corporation. This should have required a notation in the reports as to this fact, per the AICPA compilation requirements.
No, if a lawsuit ensues (which is what this current discussion was about) many parties, especially the CPA firm, will be named. Defending itself that it could rely on information provided by management will not suffice to protect it.
On twitter Aug. 7, "official" said PR "next week." No detail.
Super - someone on here posted that, but the story was that neither Ralph nor the CPA firm ever checked with the T/A. Since 2008! A poster on this board did check with the T/A, and was then told the corrected O/S balance of 2 billion shares. (up from management's stated approx. 1.2 billion shs). That started an interim panic sell.
Management excuse was somehow the 2008 event causing this difference was somehow overlooked.
Could be a T/A problem in here somewhere, personally I doubt it, but certainly possible.
Yes. But the T/A will have E & O insurance,some reserves, etc.
The thing is I doubt the T/A did anything wrong here. The buffoons are board, mgmt and the CPA firm. And maybe not in that order. Janice, the CPA did not know the correct O/S balance. Did not even check with the T/A. For.Eight.Years. (!)
I agree, Janice. But, this could only be done on a contingency basis anyway. Doubt anyone here wants to shell out the funds, and that's if they could find a legal firm to take it on an hourly arrangement (I forget what they call that).
Suit, at a minimum, would be against Pinedo, board, other management that committed/participated in fraud, the CPA firm (deep pockets), Transfer Agent (deep pockets), and some sideline suspects (deep pockets) yet to be named.
What you do...
...is name the Transfer Agent as a co-defendent in the suit. (Remember, there was a discrepancy between the T/A and the on-going CPA firm's financial reports). The T/A will give you all the info you need in order to get out of involvement.
And...the good Dr. & Co. team have publicly said NO reverse split. Some integrity just to state that, when its in his/their best interests to do otherwise.
LOL, I will put that down as a question, somehow. ENCC's financials have to come out by next Mon or Tuesday, I think, so will put down another list of questions. If anyone has questions, please post them by Friday.
Well, they have been "acquiring" for quite some time now. How many years does it take to close a deal?
This time, the SEC was concerned enough about how this matter was being disclosed to the investing public on PGPM's website to issue this notation in their Order of Suspension of Trading, dated June 29th:
"(iii) statements on the company’s website concerning oil and gas producing operations at the company’s properties."
Further, the new CEO Smith has stated, after the Order - on July 25th - that PGPM is bringing inactive wells to production. Note this was AGAIN stated in the PRESENT TENSE, not FUTURE TENSE.
And hopefully they have/are doing so, "but, aye, there's the rub..."
Yes, prior AND current management has been bodacious or audacious about it.
This is what has been written in their PR legal notices sections as far back as I can find, and including the 7/25 PR:
"The company is acquiring oil and gas leases, producing properties, mineral rights, and surface interests."
Notice, again, "producing properties," and the statement's present tense. (I believe that is why the SEC put a bullet point in their Order regarding this matter).
Which is why an audit is needed to see what actually has happened. The prior financials prepared by the long-term CPA firm (in name only) do not reflect any production. Records are so bad they could be selling oil to North Korea and no one would know it.