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.
Interesting how, after almost 2 years, none of Division's dire predictions of chronic delinquency and/or serious and recurrent violations by DBMM have come to pass.
All that demonstrates is someone posted something that does not match the official release on the company website.
The quote is directly from the company website.
They very specifically refer to OTCQB:
Fair enough. However, that doesn't necessarily mean I with stop providing counter-points when I find your commentary lacking.
BTW, You should REREAD THE POST PROGRESSION. In that thread you did not mention DBMM not being able to afford to challenge SEC.
"DBMM is broke and has to borrow to even file financials." So we agree this comment is irrelevant. You DID NOT mention challenging SEC in your post.
SEC's failure to provide clarity damages potential future investors by preventing them from making fully informed decisions and current investors by handicapping the company they have invested and preventing it from operating in the market even though it is compliant and up to date in its filings. DBMM is "above board" with regard to current information and has been for some time..
It is not SEC's job to prevent investors from making unwise decisions. It is SEC's job to ensure the information investors have access to is reliable. Leaving questions unanswered for protracted periods of time runs counter to SEC's mandate.
The rules specify what to file and by when, not how to pay for filings. DBMM is in compliance with the actual rules.
BTW, how is SEC's ongoing failure to provide clarity to current and potential future shareholders considered "protecting" them?
Thanks. I am definitely not happy with this bear market and the toll it has taken on my crypto related holdings but I take a step back to see the bigger picture, try to keep a level head and look forward to brighter days.
Maybe the 10Q that's due out in about a month will give us a little holiday boost.
The "overwhelming perception" that miners stocks are not worth more than their current price (mere fractions of their previous levels) is applicable across the board for crypto miners. INTV is definitely not unique in that regard nor is INTV the worst performer.
Why should Steve purchase INTV shares when the vast majority of his compensation is share based? (Selling shares in order to buy shares, what would that accomplish?) Also, given the nature of his compensation, the decrease in share price impacts Steve negatively as well.
In the broader context of crypto miner share holders, INTV holders are better off than some and worse off than others but, in general, it sucks for everyone.
My opinions only.
Plot INTV against other miners, e.g., HIVE, HUT, MARA, RIOT, and you'll see a similar YTD decline trajectory up until mid-September. INTV diverged downward from the rest by an amount commensurate with the increase in OS from the (favorably) revised warrants.
The "truth" is miner stocks have fallen as a class. The falling tide has lowered all ships. INTV sitting a bit lower due to increased OS.
Some blame Steve for the entire drop. Are we to assume he is also responsible for the drop in the other miners as well, or that the other miners dropped because of a bad crypto market but INTV dropped solely because of Steve? Either perspective seems irrational.
My opinions only.
Looks like PPS is recalibrating to reflect the increase in OS. Guess we'll see how tempting that is to the shorters.
My opinions only.
The actual facts at hand and documentation do not support those assertions.
I am not changing any facts. Steve's PR clearly states letter of intent. He never claimed to have purchased Tioga. The arrangement is spell out in the filings.
Those are the facts.
Claiming he did something different because you read it that way is an opinion, NOT a fact.
Steve framed Tioga as intent to purchase, NOT as a purchase. Actual arrangement was spelled out in the filings.
Looks like someone is working hard to keep INTV down here, IMO. Not selling anywhere near these levels but picking up cheapies as games are played.
More flogging of non-issues and unsubstantiated FUD.
Saw that. Looks like $0.50 per share for Chen to assume control. One would think he expects some kind of return on that but who knows . . . .
What's hilarious is the continued flogging of non-issues.
I suggest you reread the financials. The answers are there.
Could be though Jeffery Mutual converted a bunch preferreds for commons. Dilutive financing catching up to them but at least they did get some assets out of it.
There will be more dilution coming as JM cashes in on existing but proof of mining could give us reason to believe dilutive financing arrangements will not be needed going forward.
Anxious for that operational update we were promised.
My opinions only.
Not trying to be a bear here but people keep posting there has been no dilution or that OS is the same as when ATH was hit but that is not correct. Realistic expectations are better set using actual facts. Of course, people should do their own DD but that has not been easy with this ticker.
That said, I'm looking forward to seeing pix of the rigs, cooling system, etc. and finding out the hash rate and expansion schedule.
Cautiously optimistic.
My opinions only.
They may need to submit a revised Q2. The Statement of Operations shows 2020 and 2019 rather than 2021 and 2020. (Kind of sloppy.)
BTC balance was 15.2 coins end of Q1, now 0 coins. FIL balance was 8,707 end of Q1, no change at end of Q2.
They show mining expenses in Q2 though there were none in Q1 indicating they had rigs running but no revenue? no additional coins? What were they "mining"?
They are transitioning to a Metaverse focus but it's not clear (to me) what that will look like.
BHPCoin did not become the utility token W Wu was hoping for. Maybe L Chen will have more success with FIL. IPFS seems to be a real thing, NFTs and Metaverse are new but taking off.
For me, this investment is a sunk cost that's well under water. For now, I'll just hodl and see if my gamble ever pays off. Based on their track record, though, it looks like these guys are not going to get me my Lambo. Very disappointing so far.
My observations and opinions only.
Incremental increase in revenue (similar to last Q) + no coins held on Balance Sheet + no cash from sale of cryptocurrencies = NOT MINING as of end of Q3.
Maybe Bryan can clarify.
My opinions only.
No dilution? The filings say otherwise. OS has increased by 77.7M in 2021 (35%) and by 97.7M (49%) since September 2020. It is awesome that they survived to get Pink Current again but in doing so they relied on significant dilutive financing to do so.
OS:
September 30, 2020: 199,145,701
December 31, 2020: 219,145,701 77,749,607 increase
September 30, 2021: 296,895,308 97,749,607 increase
Looks like most of the dilution is from Jeffery Mutual converting Series C shares or being issued new shares over the last year.
If the Fins show signs of a robust mining operations then ATH is pretty much a lock but it will likely take a bit longer to get there. Looking forward to more good news and an epic run.
According to today's filing, Jeffery Mutual was issued 6.7M converted shares in September 2021. That could have been where some of the selling pressure was coming from. Hopefully, that is done.
My observations and opinions only.
Observations based on facts. I have given props when they deserve it. Criticisms harsh at times? Yes, but not without cause.
A swing and a miss. Strike 2!
The Statement of Stockholders' Deficit was incorrect in the initial submission and is still incorrect in the revised submission.
I hold both as well. I believe HUT is a long way from the top but also agree that BITF has yet to really begin it's run.
Good luck to you.
This didn't age well, did it?
One was a revision of Q2 2020 submission that was filed last August. The second was the Q2 2020 financials which had not been filed yet, i.e., filed for the first time today, about 54 weeks late.
Still waiting for the next 4 quarters of financials and the attorney letter.
Except that they F'd over a good portion of their loyal shareholders with the rest soon to follow.
How about holding them accountable? Their lack of compliance and/or timely remediation has already had negative, real world consequences for users of E*Trade. A Buy order will not execute and produces this notice:
Except that for Q2 2020, they did exactly that. They filed the quarterly report indicating financials by reference but never filed those financials.
I don't expect a repeat of that this time but . . . .
My opinions only.
WRONG! YOU need to look again. Financial statements ARE NOT provided in those filings.
Yes, but without any financial statements.
There have been no financials posted since the quarter ending March 31, 2020. They need to get those posted along with an attorney letter to regain current status.
My opinions only.
No financial statements posted yet.
People have been asking Steve for operational and financial updates on Twitter. If we were waiting for a Q, it would be coming out about now but the 10-K won't be out until late next month.
Why would he put anything out early unless it's positive news?
My opinions only.
Let's not forget:
"Talkies will NEVER catch on."
"There will NEVER be a need for a computer in every home."
"The Internet is JUST A FAD."
That response simply reinforces how weak your argument is. To paraphrase, "An asset that everyone doesn't go all in on is based on smoke, mirrors and salesmanship." If it applies to bitcoin it should apply to any other asset.
The fact that many reputable organizations and respected investors are acquiring and/or retaining bitcoin supports the value proposition.
My opinion only.
Many organizations have added Bitcoin to there balance sheets using profits, therefore no need for them to use debt, and several miners have used debt to fund expansion in order to retain their Bitcoin. Seems like that supports the value proposition and undermines your thesis.
My opinions only.
Another SIMPLE FACT is, TO THIS DAY, Judge Foelak believes any so called "deficiencies" are immaterial and, therefore, not sufficient to support Div of Corp Fin's request.