You dismiss “Genetic AI” as unreliable, fact-free, and in need of “oversight and consultancy”… yet DBMM repeatedly promotes its own AI-driven capabilities through Digital Clarity. So which is it? AI is incompetent and can’t be trusted or AI is sophisticated enough to power DBMM’s business model?
You can’t have it both ways.
If AI “doesn’t ever have the facts,” then what exactly is DBMM selling through Digital Clarity? If AI requires human oversight to be credible, then that same standard applies to DBMM’s AI claims. Selectively attacking AI only when it challenges your narrative is pure hypocrisy.
Now let’s address the financial misunderstanding.
A rising PPS does NOT magically erase a shareholder deficit. A shareholders’ deficit is an accounting condition where total liabilities exceed total assets. That is fixed by:
Generating sustained profits
Converting or eliminating debt
Increasing assets relative to liabilities
It is NOT fixed by the market price of the stock moving up.
Stock price is market sentiment. Shareholders’ equity on the balance sheet is accounting reality. Two very different things.
Invoking SEC Regulation FD while simultaneously posting opinion-based predictions about future PPS eliminating balance sheet deficits is also contradictory. Regulation FD concerns selective disclosure by issuers it does not shield speculative message board claims from scrutiny.
If DCIE succeeds and produces real earnings, that’s measurable. If liabilities are reduced and equity turns positive, that will show in audited financials. Until then, saying “watch and learn” isn’t analysis, it’s hope.
If AI needs oversight, apply that standard consistently, especially when the company you defend claims to be built on AI.
Market Data 
Markets 
