Replies to post #37923 on SiNtx Technologies Inc (SINT)

[boston745]

Why do you imagine Sonny is expanding Sintx addressable market for? What about the extensive patents? Thats alot of work if hes not doing much.

Incidentally thats why IP is worth so much more than current market cap. Why do you think the companies marketcap and the value of the intellectual property are so disconnected?

[boston745]

Boston thats my point. Sonny has failed to capitalize on the opportunities. We need a true CEO that focuses on growth, accountability, communication based on being a public company. Protect your company image, market cap, shareholders unless your creating damage on purpose.

Thats just it, he didnt "fail" only seemed to fail or gave the appearance of failure. Meanwhile the real shit is happening behind the scenes which is on purpose. Which brings me to a Joev2 post from back then:

When I first heard of Sint, the company had already lost 99% since going public, so I already knew it was quite suspect. A few years later, the only thing this ceo can be commended for was taking advantage of a pandemic by raising a ton of money through scammy news releases. Heck, I even commended him.

There is zero credibility left after all this time. But hey, it ain't my money. Just want the lies to stop because some honest people may actually be persuaded here that Sint under Bal has something to offer, other than emptier pockets.

Sint under Bal had things to offer, an "impressive intellectual property portfolio". Thats been my main point over all these years here, Sonny and his team developed an impressive IP portfolio and that portfolio is very valuable. While its true Sonny didnt bother to worry about revenue, that IP portfolio was setting the foundation for revenue that Olson is now pursuing. That foundation had value and that value should have been allowed to be reflected by the markets under normal circumstances. However whats gone on here is not normal at all.

The truth is, up until 7 months ago, SINT WAS NOT pursuing partnerships. The prior management team and governing board ran SINTx like a research lab - not a for-profit public company.

Sonny may not have been pursuing commercialization partnerships, but he had development partnerships in place. This is something that Joe, stock-hunter, and the rest, always ignored. If IP was the foundation, then the development partnerships were the walls of the building. This was an additional layer of value that Sonny helped establish that was not being reflected by the market under Sonny. Hell it still isnt being reflect even under Olson who has established hes going to finish this building and put a roof on it! WTF?

Roof represents the final stage, commercialization. You cannot have this stage without the first two that Sonny established. This again is what I argued over and over again here. But Stock-hunter seems right above, that Sonny did do damage to Sintx, certainly seemingly on purpose. He, coupled with the narrative that was being created surrounding Sintx, actually worked to somewhat hide the foundation but particularly the walls from most people's view. This supports what Joe was saying. That under Sonny, Sint did not really have anything to offer because he was trying to distract from what he was building. While Sonny and these posters wanted people looking left, i kept my eyes on what I could see. I have always been able to see what Sonny was building. But I did not realize for the longest time that Sonny was trying to undermine his own project and never intended to complete this project.

intellectual property (IP) is the foundation that supports everything, development partnerships are the walls that provide structure and enclose the project, and commercialization is the roof that shelters and completes the business. A strong foundation (IP) is necessary for stable walls (partnerships) to be built upon, and only once the walls are in place can the roof (commercialization) be added to protect the asset and allow it to be utilized

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=169528696