For some the only reality is their own.
Greetings Cadillac107 and others,
For a very small percentage on this message board, there is only their own reality of history and none other's exists correctly. Meanwhile all the others recognize that history is not proof of the present.
Lets take as an example someone posting multiple commentary posts based on court rulings of a year ago or more.
Something that is accurate a year or more ago does not indicate still existing conditions. With CYIO, what was at the conclusion of the SEC court suit and legal proceedings was then, and huge changes have happened since then for CYIO.
1. Does anybody here believe court imposed fines or reinstatement requirements accept I.O.U.s ? I've never heard of one. CYIOS had conditions before determined by the SEC and confirmed by the judge - already a year or more ago.
But those conditions like:
1. selling the software shell and turning the military customers over to the buyer of that shell
2. arranging paying the company fines
3. correcting back financials and updating those not done at the time were all required
4. as well as court required surrender of the former CEO's options etc. and him not being allowed in management or participation of operations,
All these condition is before CYIO could have a change of final ownership transfer and public re-instatement after making the sale of its shell.
So I ask you why would anyone want to continually reference the past and deliberately disregard the changes made since that history existed - when we already know we have new leadership and new ownership and totally different market activities and considerable market cap changes and financial reporting corrected since then ?
Courts and the SEC don't take "I. O. U.s ", and certainly we know the former CEO is gone as of the April press release.
CYIO today is something new and shiny and has all the latest upgrades that prior CYIOS didn't have.
Lastly - other than 3 press releases by Helio talking about wanting a potential small public company to potentially have a minority merger situation with where Helio would be the controlling entity (majority) - why would anyone and everyone consider CYIO the most likely? Well how about for any and all of these reasons:
O'Shea is the Founder and principle of Helio as well as making all the comments in the press releases - he also happens to be one of a small group that rescued CYIO and got all the SEC financial reporting and updating completed . . . and is our Chairman of the Board of CYIO.
Then there is Christie - a Co-Founder of Helio and also happens to be a Board member and advisor to CYIO.
And then there is the description of the CYIO abilities, products, etc. Which includes:
"The (CYIO) team has in-depth knowledge of the health and wellness markets, financial services industry, medical and health services, and blockchain. The Company looks to develop, distribute, and license proprietary products as well as evaluate potential acquisition opportunities."
And then there is Lewis - who specializes in acquisition, merger, and banking as well as healthcare related.
In other words - CYIO already indicates long before any merger issues - its abilities and intentions to be involved in block chain, in banking, and acquisition - and so the SEC can see it as a merger would be an expansion of its already described focuses.
====== > Why doesn't the "Name" CYIO come up in Helio statements? Come on . . . every one who has ever been involved in any merger should know and be fully aware that no merger gets naming specifics or comments publicly made until everything is either agreed on or fully prepared to present to shareholders and the public (like year end reports and everything spruced up and polished. "ESPECIALLY" if a Janet Yellin is in this set of circumstances as the just approved Treasury Secretary and the uniqueness of being potentially the possibility of being the 1st public block chain related company in the U.S..
