Vystar Corp (VYST)

[stervc]

Edited: TenKay, respectfully, in response to those VYST comments...

Regarding Point #1
Not correct. He was not giving me guidance. He did not offer that information to me as guidance. I asked him a few questions and he gave me a speculative answer based on the questions I was asking him. He made sure what he said was not finite and that I should wait to see what is released in the audits. Again, that conversation was back in Jan 2019. When I spoke to him months later about such, he did not recall ever telling me such. He also had informed other investors that he did not recall ever informing me of such. Technically speaking, it’s hearsay. When I bring such to the IHub forum, it’s officially considered as speculation or just an opinion per IHub rules as I had indicated within the post below which really makes this a nonissue:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=149135161

Still, Greg Rotman is the IR and not an officer and not a director of VYST. The IR speculative thoughts are different than that of an officer or director. Greg is basically nothing much more than a shareholder if you really want to be technical about it. His official vote about anything or what he says technically and officially means no more than what you or I would say or think. Basically… he has no official vote just like how we don’t.

Also, per… ”Regulation FD (for “Fair Disclosure”), promulgated by the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)… because Regulation FD is not an anti-fraud rule, only conduct that is knowing or reckless can constitute a violation”… as indicated below per the rule:
https://media2.mofo.com/documents/faqs-regulation-fd.pdf

If Greg does not recall ever telling me such, then that is not considered “officially knowing” such. That’s also not reckless if he does not recall ever telling me such. Again, technically speaking, such is nothing more than hearsay. This is a nonissue.

Also, a Regulation FD violation on its own is not enough to place liability under other SEC rules. Regulation FD also has included within its guidelines a provision that expressly states that the failure to make a public disclosure under Regulation FD does not in and of itself constitute a Rule 10b-5 violation. I’m telling you that my conversation back then in Jan 2019 had nothing to do with any kind of deceit in the sale or purchase of securities so we don’t even have to go down that rabbit hole. I did not trade any shares at all based on that conversation back in Jan 2019. Heck, I’m still holding.


Regarding Point #2
With that particular number that you are posting for the OS as of May 15, that was basically the same OS in Jan 2019 (with a slight increase in Feb 2019). It's not fair to insinuate that there was a consistent flow of dilution through May 2019 when dilution had "basically" ceased way back in Jan 2019. Yes, the 600 million shares were dilution and it was a surprise, but it was factored into the actual trading and absorption of shares back in Jan 2019 before its major move from the .000s. Yes, I will admit that the share structure should have been disclosed earlier. I can’t defend that.


Regarding Point #3
The buyback has not happened as expected so it's really not significant with going back and forth with thoughts pro or con on the matter. Anyone that bought because of the buyback has probably moved on already and likely have no idea of the real reason why myself, and I think a few others, are still here. Bottom line, I am not here because of the buyback. I am not here because of what’s in VYST right now. I am not here because of the financials as of now either. I am primarily still here because of the value that I believe is going to come from the Romans Furniture acquisition into VYST.


Regarding Point #4
See point 1 above.


Regarding Point #5
Regulatory filings are not the only way that a company can inform the public. They did publicly disclose such info although it was different from what some might call a regulatory filing or maybe not. Since such was indicated within the pacer database, it really is a regulatory filing. Another similar piece was placed into a PR. What? A PR is not considered public disclosure? It's not fair to have selective disclosure limited to what one chooses to exist to try to prove a redundant topic of choice. So… when the company does publicly disclose something, it should not be believed if it’s not in a regulatory filing? Then why suggest what was insinuated in the response to #1 regarding the need to publicly disclose if them doing so is not going to matter anyway and get them to having such thoughts as this.


Regarding Point #6
As for the Transfer Agent (TA), I'm not sure if people know this or not, but what the company says for the Outstanding Shares (OS) trumps what the TA says. The TA works for the company and not the other way around. Not many, but some companies have chosen to become their own TA. Per the SEC, typically a company will have a TA, but sometimes a company acts as its own transfer agent:
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answerstransferagenthtm.html

So, actually it’s not mandatory that a company has a TA. I used to think such years ago until I realized that such was not the case when a stock that I was in had ran from under .02 per share to $1.30+ per share with them being their own TA. The ticker of that stock was ADZR. This was quite a few years ago as it doesn’t even trade now, but believe me, them being their own TA was not an issue. To close on this topic, if the company is telling us what’s their OS, it’s fair for investors to believe them. There are plenty of multi-billion dollar companies that also have their TA’s gagged and it doesn’t hurt their credibility. I believe the credibility of VYST is still intact. The evidence is that it passes the eye test as there are no dilutive Market Makers (MMs) on Level II and it trades very very clean and have been since Jan 2019.


Regarding Point #7
See point 1.

v/r
Sterling