I was just agreeing with another poster who posted this comment on Erik:
Yeah he's brought pumps to dumps, debts, bloated salary, and taken shareholders to the toilet. Doubt the loi materializes. Zero credibility. with loads of improprieties on fiduciaries. Symbol change means diddly as the shenanigans are overt. I warned of these moves from the teens...
My other post that day was about dilution of SMCE stock in response again to another poster wondering about dilution. My comment was that Erik might go for a reverse split in the future if he wanted to uplist SMCE to NASDAQ or NYSE. Why is that a stupid comment? I think you need to review those two posts, especially in light of the fact that they were both responses to another poster.
Thanks.
By the way here is the second post I'm referring to:
I believe Erik's plan is a reverse split. ~100:1. Get the share price back in the pennies.
The last sentence in that post was an unnecessary jab at Erik. And I should not have included that in my reply.
Disclaimer: Do not rely on my projections to make a buy or sell decision. Always do your own DD. Facts are truth. My opinions are just that - opinions.