Good post Imperial, but...
First of all, once again, your posts are the bomb. And your logic has helped me see past some of my problems with this play. So thank you.
But I still have a couple of issues.
First, I don't appreciate the way the 141 deal was rolled out in the last two PRs. On Sept 25th we were led to believe that the 120 million shares for 141 was in the form of a sponsorship by SPZI of 141.
I thought, "We're getting 120 million shares and we're giving up nothing. That's genius. Awesome."
The PPS went from .085 to .011 right away.
Then the next day we get the PR about SWARM being "exclusively" "licensed" to 141 for the 1.5 mill, the 7% and the 120 million shares. The market reacted negatively and the price has dropped to between .009 ands .01
The problem is that the "sponsorship" turned into an "exclusive license" which after careful review looks like a "perpetual transfer sale" of SPZI technology to 141.
I'm starting to understand that regardless of all that, the deal with 141 still looks very profitable. But I don't like the way this deal was rolled out. I feel like it has hurt Paul's credibility and I hope from now on he realizes that it's better to just be straight from the get go. And he really needs to issue another PR which clarifies EVERYTHING.
Lack of clarity gives bashers the ability to make a good deal look bad.
The second thing which still has me scratching my head is why they want to "EXCLUDE" other traders from using SWARM for the futures and derivatives market?
Theoretically, we come here to IHUB and we share positive DD as you have done so eloquently, Imperial. We do that so that others will see the good deal here and BUY SPZI therefore making the PPS go up.
If SWARM will tell other traders the same thing it's telling 141, why doesn't Paul/141 want that to happen. Isn't there a similar extedned profit in numbers as to the decisions SWARM will make for 141 trading? I am confused on this issue and I can imagine somebody articulating an argument which alleviates my problem. So please don't assume that any attempt to answer this will be attacked by me. I could be wrong here, I just don't know exactly why there is an advantage to 141 and SPZI in keeping SWARM (for futures/derivative) to themselves. Any help would be appreciated.
If SWARM works, then surely the greatest profits will come from licensing it to as many people as will pay heavily for the privilege of using it, right? As I stated in my Bouncer argument a days ago.
Also, Paul needs to clarify whether or not 141 will, as a result of its exclusive control of SWARM (for derivative/futures), be able to sublease SWARM to other traders. If that is the case, then that is a big problem for me. Hear me out...
I understand that SPZI should not be trading using SWARM since SPZI would have a conflict of interest with customers purchasing automated trading solutions and other SPZI products, but as for leasing such products to other traders/customers...THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT SPZI IS IN THE BUSINESS OF DOING. And for that purpose and as to those sort of transactions I want assurance from Paul/SPZI that SPZI and its shareholders will not have this revenue source taken from them via this 141 deal and that SPZI will not be sharing such revenue with 141.
In short, we need to know whether 141 will be taking business profits away from SPZI by sub-leasing SWARM.
SPZI sells software while 141 trades.
As long as Paul will clarify that this is the way it will work, I am looking to get back into SPZI. But if this 141 includes 141 sub-leasing SWARM, I don't like it. Paul needs to clarify all of this.
If there's a good financial reason for SWARM to be licensed exlcusively to 141, then I can understand the deal, just as long as 141 will not be subleasing SWARM as that would effectively take something SPZI had 100% control of away from us....
