You’re finally catching on — this isn’t about traditional valuation. It never was.
This is a trade rooted in market structure, not earnings per share. If you're still stuck evaluating this like it's Procter & Gamble, no wonder you're confused. I’ve said it repeatedly: the bet here is that a synthetic overhang exists because nobody expected this ticker to make it this far. That’s not “penny world fantasy” — that’s the basis for every historical squeeze you've ever read about.
As for your comment:
> “Only in penny world do people see a stock not yet at zero as a victory.”
Wrong. In short world, survival is the enemy. When a stock refuses to die — especially one labeled Caveat Emptor — it creates risk for those who thought they could bury it quietly. And when that survival is paired with regulatory compliance and unexpected persistence? That risk turns into panic.
Regarding your claim:
> “Any shorts would have had multiple chances to cover.”
Really? At what volume? Go look at the tape. This stock has been choked into illiquidity. The spread is wide, the volume is thin, and the float is tighter than it looks. Any short trying to fully cover now risks spiking the price — even without news. That’s why they haven’t. You think they’re sitting on a win — I think they’re stuck in a trap.
And by the way, quoting the drop from 0.0394 to 0.0012 only proves you don’t understand the thesis. That drop created the setup. The best short squeezes come after total despair — not while everyone’s bullish.
I'm not here to debate EBITDA. I'm here because the structure of this trade is asymmetric. High risk? Absolutely. But potentially generational reward.
And if I’m wrong?
I'll say so. Will you?
—Krombacher
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
