Replies to post #48788 on Quantum Materials Corp. (fka QTMM)

[JimmyBendrix]

Chessmite, it is really important to know when other companies in this sphere are launching products or making claims to do things that QMC or others maybe cannot. It doesn't require any other explanation. These are commercial companies who might be competitors taking market share, or who might be developing things in a different (more viable?) direction. Lets not stifle that comment please. Research papers are no comparison.

[Jamis1]

You're misreading my statements. I said when we evaluate companies, not just quantum dot companies. It was a general statement about how most evaluate their investments, not specific to QMC, as a general investor who is diversified or trades in any market. The second part of my statement was devoid of reference to QMC because it was a general comment about investing.

;)

I'm a straight shooter. Please don't try to read underlying motives to my comments. Take them at face value please.

As Jimmy just defended, competition is always relevant since in technology something better is always being developed that could obsolete older tech.

[quarrydawg]

I'm really sick of this so i'll unpack the grand mystery of why the sale of another nanomaterials company is relevant on a board dedicated to nano materials producing company. If a company stands a chance to flood the market with cheap graphene quantum dots, it could reduce the price of all quantum dots. If a larger, better established business sees said company as a valuable asset to buy, it might warrant a second glance to those invested in the nano materials industry as well. As QMC plans on the sale of quantum dots and other nano materials being their bread and butter, it is very relevant to the potential value of QTMM. It would seem that conversations about Mr. Squires haircut in his latest QMC appearance would be more welcomed than topics that could actually affect the market valuation of QTMM. (the last line is meant to be factious.)