I have no problem with anyone complaining about the performance of ONEV or questioning the management's abilities. Clearly this company has underperformed for many years. Underperforming does not directly translate to any logical conclusions about the motivation of the management being immoral or illegally conceived for a purpose of self-enrichment at the expense of shareholders.
ONEV has been a terrible performing investment. It is obviously very uncertain that the investment in technology will recover and become profitable as a "return on invested capital." However, it is not nearly as uncertain that the company will become profitable on an annual basis IMHO.
My reasons for investing are to realize a high return on my investment. I can easily do that without the company ever making a return on the total invested historical equity.
Technology investments are very high risk. There have been many failures in marketing efforts, and decisions about market-niche targeting by ONEV (that's hindsight).
I'm unwilling to conclude that means this company is a fraud. There is far too much work product evidence to justify that conclusion.
It is premature to assume that the Irish Company will succeed where ONEV initially failed in the remote market. In fact, it is entirely possible that the Irish company's PR will lift the boat of ONEV in that product niche by increasing awareness and inviting comparisons. Why would anyone rush to conclude the Irish PR is any more reliable than any other earlier or future PR? That is distorted thinking IMO.
I remain as an investor because I believe my investment is still a good one. When and if I conclude it is no longer a good investment I will be gone. When and if I decide this is the right time to sell and take my profits I will be gone.
There is a very real potential that ONEV will make a long term strategic alliance with a powerful market player within a related technology (like Google or like INTEL or like CISCO or like Level-3) and that will bring money into the marketing of their technology within the whole, and revenue to ONEV (and very possibly an acquisition). There is enough work product to justify that without any doubt. It is easier to pickup from here and extend the capability than to work around the ONEV technical solutions. (Note that LIKE means similar to, so I'm not trying to "guess who").
Now, if a merger or acquisition happens, it is realistic to say that many of the early investors will lose money on their investment. They will recover some from where they are now, but not fully. The same is true if the company becomes profitable and then continues to grow but never becoming dominate (at least it will then take a number of years and a lot of good happenings to recover the early investment levels). Some investors will still lose on their purchases.
Personally, I will continue to BUY at lows here because I am still fairly comfortable that there are enough good scenarios possible that my investment will be more than fully recovered and, in fact, will be highly profitable. It is a risk for a reward. It is not a huge risk for me personally and the reward could be immense for me personally.
I'm glad that ONEV management is continuing to try to succeed and I view the likelihood of a total BK as very remote, even now. If it were a private company they could never have advanced this far into debt, even with a VC firm supporting them they would have failed. Their success has taken too long as a business investment.... but, that is history. Their future starts tomorrow and many, many early failures have later become giants in their fields.
GLTA
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
