The following post has been edited for both clarity and compliance.
There is a binary argument that uses every bit of news or fluctuation in the PPS as proof that VPLM is a scam. No matter what happens, that information is treated as evidence that is then shoe horned into an explanation which attempts to support that singular narrative. As long as the company is not purchased or the tech is not licensed, everything else is proof that this is a bad bet. VPLM either gets monetized or it is a scam and by design, the argument goes, everything that is not the former, is simply more proof of latter.
The PPS dropped, therefore, this is going to tank, the PPS rises, therefore, it has been pumped, good news comes out... it must be suspect, bad news comes out... it is confirmation, VPLM uses a P.O. Box, VPLM has one employee, the PTAB is in on the scam, no buyout or licensing has occurred so VPLM is a scam, and one of my favorites...the guardian angel argument that in essence states that investors must be saved from their own decisions on this stock in particular due to the array of forces aligned against them. Ironic that this argument works in either direction depending on one's point of view. In reality it's not an argument at all, just a another justification for one point of view designed to shift the focus. Go back and read some of the historic posts, these arguments are time worn, tired and nothing more than a diversionary tactic to move the attention from the fact that VPLM has 20 patents and a clean sweep in the IPR wars against accused infringers.
The complexity of the influences that affect the PPS should be seen as such...COMPLEX. If the foundation of the logic in the scam narrative requires that everything occurring, either directly or tangentially associated with VPLM, is proof that VPLM is a scam, that argument is simple minded and short sighted at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.
Why over several years has there been so much effort in pushing this narrative over and over and over again? The message is always the same, Scam, Scam, Scam! But the justification for that message and the evidence cited to support it changes with every dip or rise in the PPS. When any particular reason for the scam is batted down or no longer serves, a new one is pushed to the forefront without regard for how lightly tethered to truth or divorced from common sense and logic it may be. I, for one, do not expect consistency in the PPS of a penny stock, volatility seems to be the rule. But a lack of consistency in the argument equates to a lack of credibility in the message, IMO
