Alea: I think your post neatly sums up the dilemma facing Wave and Solms.
Standards have not been the issue, neither is the constant excusatory refrain"they [the market] doesn't get it."
Wave's consistent failure to sell sustainably, rests on its products. Enterprise and government customers have either rejected or ignored Wave in their all-consuming quest for security. It is not out of ignorance, as witnessed by hundreds of demos, pilots and trials--not to mention many news stories about Wave.
Wave had a long test project with European banks that ended in failure. Had it been successful, Wave would have been on its way. I have no knowledge of exactly why the banks overseas decided against Wave, but I suspect the former CEO had much to do with it.
Had he been more receptive to suggestions and turned those suggestions into product improvements, we might not be making these arguments today.
Similarly, I suspect the current dearth of sales can be traced again to the products--something about them is turning people away.
As you have said so well, the expanding and infinite timeline given for Wave's success does not work so well in the real world. It seems both Wave and many of its supporters never learned from failure after failure. The smart thing would have been to honestly examine what was wrong, correct it and then begin anew. To my knowledge that never happened.
Consequently, failures were brushed off--expired deadlines were laughed at as inconsequential, bad practices were ignored and Wave continued on its merry way towards ruin.
Those in charge paid no penalty for failure. Salaries were high, bonuses guaranteed and they consistently put no skin in the game with their own money. They were constantly given free shares, just in case by some lucky accident, Wave hit it rich as was so often predicted.
Being wrong about Wave never stopped any of the futurists from making new predictions about imminent success. IMO, this encouraged mgt to continue the conduct that was causing the company to fail in the first place.
When shareholders grow uneasy, when they grumble and complain about things, mgt often tries to appease. Wave never did, because only only twice in my memory did the shareholders revolt against some of the self-dealing practiced by the old mgt.
The first time was the creation of Founders Shares--an outright greed grab, IMO--unjustified and bare naked self-dealing. The second time was the first employee options plan which exempted them from the first reverse split which hit other shareholders.
IMO, the market does get it. That is why Wave's twice, split-adjusted price currently is eight and a third cents apiece.
That is the past--sorry as it is. The present and the future, if there is one depends on accurate diagnosis and fixing of what stands between Wave and its potential customers. Sharp minds are trying desperately to mend the many and growing leaks in current security.
Despite the oft-cited claims of the futurists that Wave already has the solution, the answer can easily be seen in the sales numbers--not zero, but nothing close to what a real security answer would be in a teeming market looking desperately for a way to stem the breaches that allow government secrets, enterprise data and customer information to flow pretty freely to thieves and mischief-makers.
If Wave had the goods for real, it would be selling and no arm-twisting would be needed. Invent a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.
Isn't it time now for some serious and honest appraisal of where shareholders are? Solms is trying hard, I believe, but is fighting a bloody and perhaps losing war of attrition against poor reputation, shallow funding and the quick-step march of time.
Isn't it also time for reconsideration of all the failed tactics of the past by true believers, supporters and self-anointed futurists who beat the drum so loudly proclaiming Wave would soon triumph? Wave has not triumphed in any way IMO, and is further than ever from success with time stacking the deck against it every day.
If one believes the old saying the market prices in all that will happen to a company for at least the next six months, eight and a third cents is not a predictor of success. Of course the market is occasionally wrong, but in Wave's case, it has been right on the money for a long time, despite those who have consistently denied that was the case.
We can wish it were different, but all of us must yield to the facts. Facts count; dots are irrelevant and hope has no place at all in the argument.
Blue
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
