Wave Duke: It was Ronald Reagan who quoted an old Russian proverb, "Trust, but verify."
I think trust should be granted in the absence of counter indicators, but as someone whose trust was exploited, along with thousands of others--I now require some sort of verification before I fully give my trust again. Wave has not earned it back for me.
Part of that is when the CEO sets a timeline and it doesn't happen--that rings an alert to me. The verification we need to show we are actually on the right track is new sales, be they big or small. We need proof the new crackerjack sales team can move Wave products. Thus far, nada.
In the current environment where every day brings a new hack or breach involving the personal and financial data of tens of millions of Americans--a security product should not be that hard to sell--unless is doesn't work as advertised, is difficult to use, etc.
We need some verification Wave has products the market wants and will buy. Some smart people are saying the product is not up to snuff. But doesn't the lack of sales say it even moreso?
We can certainly disagree about what it means. You say Solms has your trust until he gives you a reason not to trust him.
I approach it differently. Having been burned so many times by Wave, I think the onus is on Wave to show the shareholders the company can now be trusted. IMO, Wave has not met a rather low standard--under the old regime or the new. Give me one sale to validate the company can sell its product.
Because if it can't, we are all lost anyway.
Missouri Blue (show me!)
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
