So who would pay someone to bash this stock. Do you subscribe to the idea that this is being sold short? I wish that it were that easy, I would have been all over it at penny based on what I see in the filings. I would also happily take any basher money and disclose the status as required. It would make no difference because I base my posts on what is in the filings and the press releases complete with the links.
Now, if you believe for one moment that a toxic lender, or those moving the shares for the lender, holding hundreds of millions of shares isn't motivated to employ promoters I have a bridge for sale. Especially one who is holding shares with a base price of only $0.00017 for a stock that has run like this one. So complain about, and label, the very few exposing the facts behind what is going on but celebrate the misinformation and outright lies that have been selling the new shares to the hapless. The millions potentially going into the pockets of these toxic lenders will be realized as retail trading losses. The SEC is widening its war on toxic funders Published on August 24, 2021 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sec-widening-its-war-toxic-funders-steve-taylor/
...Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 requires anyone that is paid to promote a stock must disclose the amount of the payment and who paid them. This is probably the most violated SEC regulation, which is not a surprise as it is also the least enforced. Toxic funders routinely pay promoters to pump the stocks in which they are funding. ...
...To make money on their toxic convertible loan, these funders require volume to dump into. Lots of volume, because they have a lot of stock to sell. Thus the need for lots of promoters, most of whom are non-disclosing as telling the public they are getting paid to pump, and who paid them to do it, would scare even the most die-hard penny plunger away....
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
