Once people become married to a stock/CEO - they put blinders on and ignore the facts. And resort to posting more nonsense to defend Sharp.
Let's discuss the facts then. Last I checked, there is ZERO dilution or intentional share issuances with the sole purpose of benefiting the CEO of the company, which is George Sharp. You can go back to the same terms and arguments you always use, but it doesn't change the facts.
That is, no dilution, and that GOFF/WNFT has been SEC reporting since late 2021, and tradable with all major brokers which allow the trading of OTC stocks. None of this would be possible without Sharp taking over the stock. Would you rather have a dead ticker that is not tradable with brokers whatsoever?
First what has Sharp accomplished that is so much greater than Rosen.
Rosen does deals that are highly toxic and dilutive to shareholders. Now you could argue that HMBL/TSNP was also highly toxic and dilutive, and fair enough. That management team is such a $hit show, no wonder Sharp decided to distance himself from them.
Sharp gave them a brand new vehicle, and they wrecked it with toxic debt and dilution, much like Rosen does with his deals. But before that happened, the stock made international headlines and traded $100's of millions in dollar volume for months. Just saying.
Since Sharp has taken over his shells, (and these are facts that you simply cannot deny unless you have your "blinders on"), his tickers have CANCELLED shares and the share structure has IMPROVED.
Sharp pumped all 3 hijacked dormant/zombie shells - the true believers started buying and buying as you were enriching Sharp.
What's your definition of "hijacked? A legitimate custodianship through the Nevada court system, which plenty of others have done as well? Are you saying every single person who files a custodianship petition has bad intentions and is simply out to get shareholders?
This part is complete lunacy - "but I truly believe Sharp is acting in the best fiduciary duty to shareholders" - no one could possibly believe that - Sharp has been the CEO of FORW for over 5 years and he has brought in two scams and in 3 years Sharp has dangled the carrot about mergers - companies lined up begging to work with Sharp and his worthless shells.
Then I stand alone, and that's fine. Do you even know what the definition of fiduciary duty is? It is not about "getting a deal done for the sake of it." Instead, it's about "acting in a manner that is beyond conflict of interest or other issues that would conflict with the shareholders of a corporation, and ultimately doing what is in the best interest of all stakeholders."
Now, that is a broad definition, and up to interoperation, but the point is, if Sharp was so hell bent on diluting shareholders and causing chaos, he would have done so already. Your argument is that Sharp has the malicious intent of scamming shareholders, when everything has been completely legit and done by the book. Just ask the Securities & Exchange commission what it means to be fully reporting.
Ask the Nevada court system what it means to petition for custodianship of a publicly traded corporation. Just because you throw around fancy terms such as "hijacking" and "scam" it doesn't mean anything.
That isn't Sharp was acting in the best interest of shareholders - and Sharp failed miserably when he neglected his fiduciary responsibilities.
If Sharp intentionally diluted shareholders here with WNFT or SRNW for example, and walked away from the tickers and it was provable that he didn't have any intention of ever completing a successful deal, then there may be cause to believe that perhaps Sharp acted maliciously or without the best interest of shareholders. However, your points, as always, are not grounded in reality or fact, even though you believe that they are.
