I'd place more credibility in your analysis if there had been a fundamental understanding of exactly what dilution means. It's very tiring seeing people scream "dilution, dilution!!" every time new shares are issued. That's just plain wrong.
Simply put, a stock is diluted if shares are issued at a price LOWER than the current market price. If the stock is at 2, and the shares are sold at 1, that is dilutive.
When shares are issued at a price higher than the current market price, that is ACCRETIVE. If the stock is at .016, and the shares are issued at .08, then the transaction is accretive to existing shareholders. Accretive means that a benefit has been provided to existing shareholders.
The word "dilution" has become a bugaboo, a dirty word passed among these bulletin boards to imply that the company has done something wrong to the detriment of existing shareholders. It's almost like pointing your finger at someone and screaming "Liberal" for the sake of attempting to discredit anything they might say or do. I remember one of the regular posters here screaming about the DILUTION when the Wolk deal was first announced at .139 per share. How stupid is that?
As for "diluting" the value of the technology, who knows? Only time will tell. Give Battis some credit. in a tough financial environment, he figured out a card he could play for the sake of raising cash tht the company needed. Given that there's no guarantee that this technology will ever generate a nickel of cash, I have no problem with him trading some contingent future possibility for the sake of some cash today, all while he's issuing shares at 5x the current market price.
The analysis on here is, IMO, entirely misdirected. This isnt about issuing shares; it's about issuing shares at the right price, and using the cash raised in the right way. I give Battis an A for this effort. JMHO.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
