Looks like the Twitter is back to repping NOHO...? Last I checked last week it said Longping, right? Could be something, could be nothing, could be fake...idk. Just thought it would be worth sharing.

https://twitter.com/dragon_holdings?lang=en

I don't think it could be possible for me to pick a worse time to decide to buy a new phone, than at 3:30pm Friday when this was discussed...and subsequently not find out about it until today. Woof. Think the phone cost me a few thousand dollars more than what I was planning on!

My TDA still shows Dragon Life Science Holdings Group when I click on the symbol, but when I hover over it, it does say Novation Holdings again...weird.

Yeah you can share anything he says to you. 1)You're not a journalist and "off the record." 2) You aren't privy to any more information than anyone else, THAT would be an issue. 3) Like others have said, he won't divulge anything to you, that shouldn't be divulged to anyone else. I've seen countless emails shared on iHub with convos between CEOs and users on here. You'll be fine.

Appreciate all the work you're putting into this

You'd be surprised how much money can be lost (or gained) by being able to effectively inventory and track produce from farm to shelves (especially in a country with the population of China). This creates a transparent/non-manipulative chain of inventory, and it also helps identify origins of any sort of bacterial outbreaks. For example, if XYZ Restaurant has an e-coli outbreak, they would be able to accurately track where exactly the source of the produce is, and prevent outbreaks in other areas. I believe Walmart has started doing this recently.

Like the other poster said, this is just one example of blockchain use, and can easily be adapted to other industries if the infrastructure and foundation is in place.

There's a lot to digest here...think I need a drink

Good points. I looked through Yan's weibo activity and didn't see any mention of NOHO, Dragon or Longpin. If nothing else, he might just be an advisor of some sort...or worst case scenario, all the Twitter stuff is fake anyways.

What's weird is that even if the Twitter thread isn't legit, it's led to some pretty substantial DD that indicates "something" is there...just not sure as to what. So, may have all inadvertently found something legitimate, based off an illegitimate genesis (also coincided with NoHo drink news on the same day).

Either way, I'm holding on until my shares are either banking or bankrupt.

Bashing seems consistent...

Good catch....missed that.

Different spelling like the OP mentioned though...NOHO guy was Gelmon, not Gelman as spelled on the CPA website.

TA might stand for "The Accused"...I know that might be a stretch given it's a Chinese website, but other people on the site have "TA" in the same descriptions as well. Either way, pretty sure it's referring to the person mentioned.

Edit: Found this- "“TA” , written in English letters, is effectively the unisex thrid person pronoun in Chinese language in some online context."

Think this has to get through .0035 as a lot of folks bought in at the .0016-.0017 range and probably took profits once it doubled.

Holding strong...

I just hate the perception that comes with a drop like this. To those unaware outside of this message board, could be confusing and deter people from buying in, for the short term at least.

For expectation management, I'm guessing it's safe to assume we'll see a considerable drop in share price as everyone's legacy shares become accessible and people start selling off. Especially any of the MMs out there that held on for awhile.

For expectation management, I'm guessing it's safe to assume we'll see a considerable drop in share price as everyone's legacy shares become accessible and people start selling off. Especially any of the MMs out there that held on for awhile.

I asked that very question during the SH meeting and he basically said “of course we have contingencies, no we can’t divulge them.” So, there’s that! I’m very unfamiliar with the process so I’m not sure if FINRA would counter with an acceptable split from their perspective or what. Time will tell I suppose (or not).

Just in case anyone is wondering, shareholder meeting invites have been emailed out to those that requested one. Just received an email a little over an hour ago.

I can see why you’d be skeptical of us new folks. I’ve been a lurker for a little over a month now just trying to stay on top of any news out there as I increased my number of shares. No conspiracy here, just finally felt compelled to make a profile once the bad news hit. I didn’t have anything of value to contribute before.

In a classic example of sunk cost fallacy, I’m gonna ride it out and see where this ends up. Figure it’s dropped enough where I value the potential chance of upside (albeit a small chance) more than the money I can get back if I sell now. With roughly 8.5 million shares (for now) it sucks how much it’s dropped but am fortunately in a good enough position to ride it out and not break the bank. GLTA

I read this too and didn’t know what to make of it. Both statements regarding splits (in the Reasons for the Reverse Stock Split and Effect of the Reverse Stock Split) read the same, however the former says divide by 4,000 and the latter says by 10. Though, both state that the splits are based off pre-split shares owned. Not really sure how to make sense of it.

Woof. What company was that and what was the fallout afterwards?

In theory it should be identically likely to achieve the same price per share increase relative to your proposed prices (5900%) if it’s all based off future cash flows of the company and its respective value. The valuation of the company “shouldn’t” be any different, it’s worth what it’s worth regardless of shares outstanding.

However, in practice you’re likely correct. Psychologically it’s much easier to buy into something at a ridiculously low price vs paying $120 for it (despite them both being worth the same thing). Also as we know, reverse splits tend to send negative vibes to investors, sometimes called for and sometimes not.