TEK, In the case of Spooz, I respectfully disagree that silence is not good. Here are the reasons that I disagree:
1.The silence was imposed at the behest of those negotiating with Spooz. Paul came forward immediately and made that clear. The negotiations , as Paul told us, involve those "wishing to inject millions into our company". This kind of silence can not be compared to that of pinks that suddenly fall silent without any apparent reason. Paul did not suddenly and for no reason go silent. We know the underlying reasons here and have been told not to expect to hear anything until the time comes. I don't see that Spooz can break tryst with the people across the table or foolishly ignore legal council simply to assuage a handful of impatient chat board posters. That would be irresponsible, irrational and damaging to us all. It would flat out piss me off. They need to listen to their council and keep it zipped until the conclusion of what ever is being negotiated.
2.The price performance does not support the view that..."silence is not good , not this long that is...". In fact, since the last PR we had which concerned SWARM and the phenomenal test results, the price has actually increased. It was then at about 0.007 and since has broken and largely held above a penny. My conclusion is that the lion's share of stock holders trust Paul about the silent period and the reasons behind it, and appreciate the fact that he even said as much about it as could be said. Again, price performance is what I offer as support to what I say. There simply has been no rush to the exit door.
3. As for long delays hardly ever working out for the investor you are arguably correct there, generically speaking. However, Spooz has been at this for a number of years now and has not deviated from their stated goals. And only very recently ( as in since the beginning of the year) have things developed to involve names like Activ, Man Financial, Trading Technologies, TDAmeritrade, etc. This company has evolved from one developing trading software by subscription into one negotiating with the very biggest names in the business. It has evolved to include a proprietary in house trading division revolving around SWARM. We have been told that the response to the SWARM results as well as the in house demonstrations of STv2 have resulted in a great deal of interest from the industry professionals. We have read of the possibility of STv2 becoming a value added platform for clients of brokerages.
Now, having said all this, I think that this silent period has not proven harmful up to this point. And if broken prematurely, it would certainly run the risk of harm depending upon the reaction of those negotiating with Spooz who have requested the silence. I take comfort in the knowledge that Paul and company have more riding on this than any of the rest of us. Also I am happy about the fact that Spooz is dealing with the very biggest names in the industry. This is not a time to grow impatient. Not in my mind. This has been years in the making. I don't see the logic in impatience or in expecting Spooz to break off quiet negotiations simply because some chat board posters are nervous. It's a start up venture and requires a certain mindset on the part of investors. In my opinion we need to think in terms of stages and goals, not simple chronology. When you buy a lottery ticket, you know when they hold the drawing. This is not a lottery ticket. It is a development stage start up on the verge of flight.
