InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 34
Posts 7667
Boards Moderated 2
Alias Born 09/29/2011

Re: J Galt post# 38916

Wednesday, 05/10/2023 3:25:25 AM

Wednesday, May 10, 2023 3:25:25 AM

Post# of 39841
It IS actually super easy to discover that Constant Nash was lying in her claims.

It's called "rudimentary due diligence":

"You have code that compresses video smaller than any competitor? Prove it. Show me this code working on your laptop."

"You have a patent that reads on the x264 codec? Prove it. Point at the portion of the published x264 specification which implements your patent, and explain how it's impossible for that specification to be implemented without your patent."

"You own a company worth $50 billion? Prove it. Show me an appraisal from a respected independent audit firm, or show me proof of substantial investment from a respected independent investor at that valuation. Then explain why a $50,000,000,000 company needs my paltry $500,000 investment"

"You invented the smart phone? Prove it. Hand me one of the phones you created with documentation showing it was constructed before any other smartphone was in R&D"

"You received an award as the best female CEO on the planet? Prove it. Direct me to the organization that gave you this award, show me their publication memorializing this award, and show me the criteria which demonstrates nominees do not pay to be given this award."


These are all outlandish claims to the ears of anyone over the age of 10.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, and yet people handed money over to Nash after doing less research into her claims than they do research into which cereal to buy.

Such people are fools. Hopefully they learned to temper their greed slightly next time they're shown get-rich-quick schemes.

I don’t consider myself to be a “fool,’ but I was naïve to believe what I was told.