Replies to post #46141 on Coretec Group Inc (CRTG)

[Testpilot]

How This Impacts Your Core Narrative (CRTG + DKME + Core Optics)

You’ve been building around this structure:

* The Coretec Group (parent / umbrella)
* Core Optics (˜ ~$16M assumed revenue)
* DKME Co., Ltd. (potential high-revenue piece)

👉 This KRX update is a critical gatekeeper event for that entire story.

?

🔗 Scenario Modeling (What Happens Next)

🟢 SCENARIO 1 — DKME PASSES REVIEW (Bull Case)

What it means:

* KRX accepts the improvement plan
* DKME proves:
* It is a legitimate, functioning company
* Financials are credible enough for continued listing

Impact on your thesis:

* ✔️ Validates DKME as a real revenue engine
* ✔️ Strengthens probability of:
* CRTG consolidation narrative
* Subsidiary / ownership linkage credibility

Valuation Implication:

If:

* Core Optics ˜ $16M
* DKME (even conservatively) ˜ $50M–$100M+

👉 Combined narrative:

* $66M–$116M+ revenue story

Even at 1x–2x revenue multiple (low for tech/energy):

* $66M ? $132M valuation range (low case)
* $116M ? $232M valuation range

👉 Compared to microcap valuation:

* That’s massive upside IF structure is real

?

🔴 SCENARIO 2 — DKME FAILS (Bear Case)

What it means:

* KRX rejects improvement plan
* Possible:
* Delisting
* Severe trading restrictions
* Financial credibility collapse

Impact:

* ❌ DKME revenue assumptions = unreliable
* ❌ CRTG “multi-entity growth story” weakens significantly

Valuation Impact:

* CRTG becomes:
* Primarily a single small entity story
* Likely reverts to:
* Speculative / shell-like valuation range

👉 This is the biggest downside risk to your thesis

?

🟡 SCENARIO 3 — EXTENDED DELAY (Most Likely Near-Term)

What’s happening now 👇

* KRX says: “We need more time”

Translation:

* Something is:
* Not clearly fraudulent ❌
* Not clearly solid ✔️

👉 It’s in the gray zone

Impact:

* Narrative remains alive—but unproven
* Market typically:
* Discounts heavily during uncertainty

?

🔍 Key Insight (This Is Important)

This delay tells us:

DKME likely submitted something substantive—but not fully convincing yet

That’s actually meaningful.

Because:

* If there were nothing there ? fast rejection
* If it were fully clean ? fast approval

👉 You’re in the “prove it” phase

?

⚠️ What You Should Watch VERY Closely

1. Final Committee Decision

This is the binary trigger event

?

2. Financial Transparency Signals

Look for:

* Audited financials
* Revenue breakdown
* Cash flow clarity

?

3. Ownership / Structure Clarity

This directly affects your thesis:

* Does DKME clearly link to CRTG?
* Is there:
* Equity ownership?
* Control?
* Board overlap?

👉 If not confirmed ? valuation story weakens

?

🧠 Strategic Investor Take (Blunt Version)

Right now:

* You have a high-upside but unverified structure play

?

The reality:

* This is NOT yet an “investment-grade thesis”
* It is a:
Speculative asymmetric opportunity

?

The pivot point:

👉 DKME’s approval outcome

That’s the linchpin

?

📊 Bottom Line

* This delay = alive, but under scrutiny
* Your upside case still exists
* But it is entirely dependent on validation

[Juststoppingby]

The naver.com DKME board has been busy the last few days. Lots of angry and frustrated shareholders there.

Here is a reason post.
Captain Ame
FollowView Menu
Article 19, Paragraph 5 of the Enforcement Regulations of the Listing Regulations
At the time of writing, 8:28 AM, Views 254
It is stipulated that the extension of the review of improvement measures may be granted only if there is a clear basis for a change in the major shareholder.
2025.3 According to the revised contents, the review can be extended "if it is clearly recognized that there will be implementation of important parts of the improvement plan, such as a change in the largest shareholder or a capital increase".

Here’s a clear, structured explanation of Captain Ame’s post, based directly on the page you’re viewing m.stock.naver.com.

1. What Captain Ame is saying (plain English)
Captain Ame is pointing out that:

A. The Korea Exchange (KRX) can only extend the improvement-plan review if there is a clear basis for replacing the largest shareholder.
This comes from:
- Article 19, Paragraph 5 of the Enforcement Regulations of the Listing Regulations.

B. After the March 2025 revision, the rule became even clearer:
KRX may extend the review only when it is clearly recognized that the company will implement important parts of the improvement plan, such as:
- Changing the largest shareholder, or
- Executing a capital increase.
In other words:
> KRX does not give extensions for free.
> They only extend when they see concrete, verifiable progress toward fixing the core problem.

2. Why this matters for DKME
Captain Ame is implying:
- DKME received an extension because KRX believes there is a real, identifiable basis for a major-shareholder change or capital measure.
- This means KRX sees actual movement, not just promises.
This is important because:
- Many shareholders fear the extension means “delisting is coming.”
- Captain Ame is arguing the opposite:
The extension itself signals that KRX sees a path to implementation.

3. The deeper message
Captain Ame is subtly correcting misunderstandings on the board:
- Extensions are not given when a company is hopeless.
- Extensions are given when KRX sees credible progress toward the improvement plan.
So the message is:
> “Don’t misinterpret the extension.
> Legally, it means KRX sees a clear basis for a major-shareholder change or capital action.”

4. In one sentence
Captain Ame is saying:
> “KRX only grants extensions when they clearly see that the company is about to implement key improvement measures—like replacing the largest shareholder—so the extension itself signals real progress, not failure.”