Yes, all those things must happen. But, IMO, the ability to raise money is not wholly dependent upon them. From my point of view, what matters most above all else is the efficacy, or lack thereof, of the "Tech." If it works, $5-$10m is no problem, regardless of corporate structure, which would undoubtedly be worked out where tons of money is to be made. UF, forgive me if I put words into your mouth, but I think this is the general principle from which you approach NSI. The rub? What if the "Tech" doesn't work. EQ, I think this is the frame of reference you operate out of to argue that $5-$10m is a hard sell.
All I know is the NSI playbook is clear. Example: "Successful study" without releasing any data on the study. Belief. This company requires one to believe. And, there's just enough factual information out there to reasonably justify a belief in NSI. However, the contrary is also true. Therefore, the dispute on this board boils down to one thing: Do you believe NSI or not? Each side has points that reasonably support belief and non-belief.
I want to hear why people believe or not. I don't care about what people think other people should do or not. That is why I spend my time pointing out clearly reckless takes... there's no need to concoct, spin, hyperbolize, exaggerate, or confuse matters in an attempt to influence someone to believe the way you do about NSI. In fact, if you feel so strongly in your position, that it is supported by known facts, then just argue those facts and the reasonable inferences to be drawn and allow others to form their own beliefs.
As a teacher, I thought the goal was to educate, not excoriate and castigate.
