“Lead” as in evidence to back up an assertion, (demonstrably factual or not). Certainly Josh and others have posted tons of facts, data, articles, conjecture, etc. that may or may not result in LQMT revenue. In that sense, they are “leads”. Caveat emptor.
This is where the controversy sits. Revenue is not “fact” until it is booked. Facts about Li’s maze, or production contracts are not a guarantee of LQMT net profit and share price appreciation. To DMN’s point, it is not fact until reported in some SEC sanctioned manner. Until that point, it is speculation.
I just happen to think that if you buy a penny stock, you are speculating by default. You might as well have a defendable narrative for why you believe the odds favor your investment (as long as it isn’t fueled by cognitive dissonance). The fact that DMN or anyone else wants demonstrable proof before believing is okay with me.
Guns are real. Lead bullets are real. 6 chambers are a fact. Fact is, odds are overwhelmingly in your favor. If you get an offer to put the gun to your head, pull the trigger and be paid $100 million if you survive, do you? Some will, some won’t. To quibble over whether it is fact that you could die vs. fact that you could be rich is silly. I’d be calculating my odds and those things that influence my odds and weighing them against my tolerance for violent end to my speculating days. In that world, every shred of information is crucial. In that world, I hope I have access to the joshuaeyu of Russian roulette.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
