That opinion should be heeded, it is a valid concern. We cannot simply assume that what IR states is why and how those funds were allocated and used. The burden of proof is on the company to either confirm one way or another. Are they required to? No. Will they? If a full audit, uplist and full transparency are their goals then yes, they should. We'll see but until then, my perspective is proceed with caution.
BTW, how do you know that the audit will lower the amount of dilution? What if it exposes an ugly side of the financials that were previously not disclosed? It has the potential to go either way.
If there is harping for a potentially bad thing then there is a reason. Similar to if there is exuberance about potential contracts and good things there is a reason to discuss that too. I don't see that discussing both sides is a problem, opinion or not. The company can either verify or dispell the issues both good and bad.
IMHO.
D
