"frogdreaming,"
Another alleged conspiracy, huh? ("The idea back then was to disguise a RS inside the spin-off.")
I don't see anything nefarious in anything the company has done. I see a company that's been behaving ethically, and persistently trying to succeed.
It's very easy to allege things... anything at all. It's quite another thing to substantiate an allegation with evidence and logic (spin that doesn't hold water, doesn't count.) It's very telling when a person making so many allegations, never retracts any of them, no matter how soundly the allegations are disproven.
Why does a small, startup biotech R&D company become publicly traded, in the first place? The answer is obvious: To raise funding. Nothing nefarious in that. If you want to play the game, you should understand it. If/when there's dilution in a stock, an investor can choose to average down, or choose to back out -- two rational decisions, depending on the circumstances. It's completely voluntary, and educated investors are not surprised by the ordinary workings of publicly traded, microcap R&D companies. At least, DNAPrint Genomics has produced some very noteworthy intellectual property, and products, already, with what I (and others) consider a very economical burn rate on their funds.
Unfortunately, there has been entirely too much manipulation, often combined with manipulative propaganda, not only against DNAG, but against many other stocks. The manipulation has been extremely blatant, and I still consider, it has created an extremely undervalued stock (which is why I've bought so many shares, of course.)
I suggest taking some courses on investment. That might clear things up for you, a bit.
Daniel
