hi dig,
it's worth trying to explain obstructions. i don't understand why anyone would want to try to whistle them away. if you approach wave without trying to understand why the deals haven't occurred, you miss out on an opportunity for perspective.
in the case of one solms explanation, if you accept his claim that the reason the sales haven't occurred is due to the lack of a strong balance sheet at wave, then you probably must conclude that a gigantic dilution is ahead of investors. that's the solution to the identified problem. you solve the problem by infusing cash at the expense of investors.
another solms explanation which seems unrelated to the first one is that the reason for the lack of sales is long lead times at purchasing companies. that's maybe a more favourable explanation for investors, although we already know that solms isn't in a position to gauge the timeline accurately (failed with his 2014 goals). so this path may also lead to dilution, albeit in smaller increments.
when sprague was around, we tried all sorts of explanations for the lack of sales, from price to product to demand etc. all of those were denied at the time by optimists in favour of the notion that nothing was wrong and engagement was right around the corner. so i think we know that approach has deficiencies. the result of the blind corner tease was further dilution.
for myself, i think you have to ask yourself the question why, 10 months after the vsc 2.0 product launch, there hasn't been a pattern of major sales? i think you have to ask this at least until there's a pattern of them. because at the moment, assuming i am correct that there's an obligation to report material sales, there's a distinct pattern of none of them (for vsc 2.0).
the cost of no sales is further dilution. and that is a significant factor in any decision to own or not own the stock.
one thing seems still to be true. on its present trajectory, wave remains a dilution stage company.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
