That's a rather meaningless, nebulous sentiment as it doesn't take actual circumstances into account. When someone has used a vehicle (in this case, the OTC market) to make a living through constant failure, one should be cautious in thinking anything should be different going forward.
Everything stated should be questioned and not summarily accepted on the face value. A good example of this is the original statement that IDGC owned some 85M shares of APRU. Upon being questioned on this, because it made no sense whatsoever, we learned it was a "stock purchase agreement". Then, it was a "promissory note". Now, we learn there were convertible notes involved. Now, I believe we've finally gotten to the truth but what's lacking is the terms and conditions of those promissory notes. That would reveal that the value of those shares cannot be simply considered by multiplying those 85M shares by whatever the sp of APRU is.