Wow! That's a really smart question. Unfortunately I'm not certain I can answer you as my work experience is older-school. However, I often see Tweeters claiming to be connected or somehow representing managements. to tell you the truth, I didn't join Twitter until last week and even then--because I was feeling old and out of the loop.
I can tell you this much:
Anyone legitimately connected to a traded entity, holding any executive office or retained as a Director or consultant--- means that individual will be immediately responsible for disseminating any information capable of influencing the company's bottom line. I'm betting that if Zev or Tony or anyone else in the employ of the company and fully aware of insider information as only an executive will be---such person (s) will surely be held liable if found to be deliberately misleading investors or would-be investors. The idea behind the SEC's rulings on this pertain to protecting possibly naïve investors. While many analysts claim to despise SEC rulings, I've witnessed many instances where those rules have saved good people from finding themselves massacred by knowledgeable manipulators. I sometimes take issue with the SEC but only because life might be more fun if we didn't have rules. Hell, we've gotta be good or Santa won't stop on our rooftop!
I bring Zev into this because he may not be employed directly by the company but hired consultants sign NDA's to protect both parties. His company is probably working on a bonus basis pending time periods reflecting benefits of his company-led efforts. His style has been exemplary, distinguished by his very careful comments---never saying too much as it would be dangerous. If I saw him slip however subtly, you can be sure I'd be alerting him via personal message---or calling him without dispatch. However, he has been a reassuring voice going out of his way to comfort us.
I hope this helps!
All in my opinion, of course.
