Austin. I think you are writing a book about this whole thing. LOL!
I've tried to come up with ways to logically explain how after all the evidence presented says tech either is non existant, or doesn't work, yet you continue to ask Brad questions. Has he told you the truth yet? You never commented on my post in regards about the fact he never did answer your question but spun around it like a top.
I think you are writing a best seller and you need more material so you continue to prolong the story line with these questions. You are sly! LOL!
NV has no tangible assets that a bank would lend money as collateral for, except for shares. Most banking institutions would not be willing to go that route due because of the risk.
Several years ago I supported the idea of going to a Venture Capital firm and obtaining funding via that route. Many people didn't like that idea due to the dilutive measure it would have taken on the stock. With a VC firm leading this company like Sequoia, NV would no doubt have had revenues from a product well over a year ago. That is if they do really have a working technology. The resources from a VC firm would have insured that would be the case and more companies would probably see it as a legitimate operation in addition to the shareholders.
I wonder what the true thoughts of the company were when Bill proposed of just getting them in contact with Sequoia. On their website it lists the portfolio of companies they've funded, many of which are well known today. Just look at how many successful semiconductor companies they've funded and a few which have also been bought out by Cisco. Many were dreaming of this type of scenario a couple years ago. I'd have to say that turning down the prospect of talking with Sequoia is pretty darn arrogant, at the least. That is arrogance this company can't afford to have nor the shareholders deserve. Then again, we probably don't want to know what the company thinks.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
