I'm a relative newcomer here, so I don't have all the historical context. But re: dilution, how is the company supposed to cover expenses before the business is established to a point that cash flow is covering expenses to some degree? Whether it's via direct sales of shares by the company or via convertible notes offered to entice investors to fund a high risk company, dilution has to be expected at this stage, no?
It's not pleasant for shareholders to endure, but anyone investing in these pre-cash flow OTC pinks has to expect dilution until the company is self-sustaining or credible enough to attract funding on better terms.
There's a difference between dilution that's a result of corrupt management and dilution that is legitimate and necessary to further the company's growth. Again, fairly new here but I hear a lot that sounds more like the latter. GTEH is reporting and current and sounds like they are building a reasonably cohesive business. That's more than can be said about most companies trading on the pinks.
Hearing that the company is planning to make a large purchase order to build inventory - well, that probably means some dilution because where else is the money for it going to come from? But if you believe in where the company is going, and that the inventory is going to be sold at a decent margin, then it should be worth it, right? Heck, it's the same for nearly every pre-commercial biotech out there. They fund their R&D and clinical trials by selling shares. And many of them trade on NASDAQ. Dilution can be legit. It's all about what the proceeds of the dilution are being used for and if you believe in that or not.