ONEV is the problem. They are either not honest with their shareholders 100% of the time or they are among the most fiscally incompetent group of tech company managers that have ever existed on the OTC. That isn't a matter that is open to discussion on whether or not one or the other of those definitions is correct. Either one or the other are facts. The only argument would be which one. Regardless using ONEV as your major source to perform research after they have proven to be wrong on so many levels, so many times is just foolish. That's not a slam against ONEV, it's a vettable fact found by examining the company's own SEC filings juxtaposed with plain common sense
IMHO, using the Philips speech engine (and apparently elements of another speech engine) a patch program that instructs an operating system to use the speech algorithms interpreted by the speech engine(s) to perform various and sundry functions was developed by Weber and patented. MV and MCC do exist and, in the absence of dissection and careful examination of the code by a professional analyst, one could assume they would likely appear to be a highly complex, self contained VR system(s) to a layman. As the company has stated in their SEC filings that the (described) leased Philips speech engine "allows their systems to be functional" one must also assume that the above description is a crude but essential interpretation of ONEV's tech. If this is true, and I believe it is, I have been told the use of ONEV tech would appear pretty impressive to the layman not familiar with a broad scope of VR tech. Add in some sophisticated doublespeak chin music from a master of the art, mix it up with another sophisticated master of convertible deriviative finance and shell restructure and, voila! You might have some pretty hard core "believers" who had seen and used and "believed" in person. So while certain parties may have used the tech, talked many times with ONEV management, attended shareholder meetings and have been completely convinced that the company will do what it says it will do despite the overwhelming evidence it rarely does, THEY could still be wrong. About everything. It's not inconceivable and becomes almost likely if history is used as a guide.
But the only way you could possibly open your mind to that reality is to avoid interpreting any information released by the company (outside of the SEC filings) or released through their surrogates by hearsay or phone conversation as a "factual" part of that research ("DD" if you must). Selling your shares and moving on at 2/10ths of a cent is absurd. Back at two cents when all this was becoming clearly apparent was the time to get out. Asking questions about how you GOT to this level is 100% valid. Having some negative outlook on the current situation, completely understandable. Nothing strange about that at all. Now, buying more shares and averaging down into this situation is patently absurd and against every single sound fiscal tenet of investing ever conceived. Only a fool or a flipper with access to illegal inside info playing with throw away money and/or discounted shares issued from the company would be doing that here. And, if there is going to be a conversation about credibility and ONEV, I think all the above factors must be taken into consideration and the source of the "DD" that has generated these "facts" taken not with just a grain, but a 50lb bag of salt.
SBB
AI
