I would not have thought you were being rude simply by answering a question that I posed.
Anyway, I do remember that release that you mentioned regarding the share rollback for those holders involved in the convertible debt; however, I would have assumed that the release would have been more specific (i.e. not calling 100,504,262 shares 100,000,000 shares for the sake of simplicity). Maybe you are correct in your assumption that the 100,504,262 really does pertain to those 100 million. It definitely makes sense after you point that out.
Another reason that it didn't make sense to me initially was that I thought the rollback would have been completed by now. So the 100 million would now be 333,333,333 (or more specifically to follow your train of thought, they would now be 335,0114 if the 300:1 rollback was on the 100,504,262). But after reading your statement saying that the rollback wasn't complete yet and that it is "ongoing", and after re-reading the release, which says "pending implemenation by the transfer agent" I am realizing it may actually NOT be done yet. I have no idea how long those things should take to be ironed out!
Even still, the numbers I wrote above could all still be wrong since you mentioned that a quarter of that stock had matured (I definitely glossed over that fact along the way or never read it). So really they're dealing with 75 million not 100 million. So then, as you pointed out, the 75 million goes to 250,000 after the rollback. But they might still be rounding because, if for argument's sake, the 100,504,262 shares really are the 100 million number that they rounded down to, then if a quarter of 100,504,262 matured, that would leave 75,378,196.5 shares. A 300:1 rollback on that would be 251,260.655.
I think it would have been a little more clear if they were specific in their numbers during press releases rather than just rounding to 100 million (if that's truely what they did). After typing out all those numbers above, though, I can see why it's just a heck of a lot easier to round when dealing with press releases. Who knows? I'm just running with this.
So, yes, it would suck to be those shareholders if the rollback goes through, especially since it's not like a true reverse split where they decrease the # of shares but the price per share goes up accordingly. They knew what they were getting into, I suppose.
Regarding the "going concern" principle...I agree that this basic accounting principle is elucidated in all their finanicals they have released. It's pretty much in all penny stock's financials. I was just pointing out that from one quarter to the next quarter in their fiscal year, their perception of future funding went from lukewarm (at best) to doubtful.
Let's hope they continue to investigate all avenues of funding and get some big whigs with a lot of $$$ who believe in what BION is doing and what BION can achieve with this revolutionary technology.
Thanks for chipping in and explaining things from your perspective.
