My error is my own. The price spike that day was due to some people believing that NetCapital was essentially buying shares at 25 cents. What they were doing was taking the debt they had acquired at a 75% discount and letting PVSP benefit from that discount. NetCapital probably came out even or with a loss on that transaction. There was nothing stated that all future deals between PVSP and NetCapital would be as favorable to the shareholders. I might even expect that if NetCapital took a loss on that deal that future debt conversions would be more favorable to NetCapital.
Here's another way to look at the deals. If enough people believe that PVSP will be successful, the share price would be higher and the subsequent dilution will be much less. With less dilution in the pipeline, a higher share price could be supported now. That's one possible equilibrium. Another equilibrium is that there is not enough support for the share price, meaning that there will be more dilution, and a lower share price. That's another equilibrium, and the more stable of the two. Riss and Fanning may have been hoping and trying for the first equilibrium. Perhaps if Fanning had been part of the MySpace buyers, that higher share price would have been achieved. That was a risk I took on, knowing the risks and the potential rewards.
You still have no evidence of illegal shorting. Stating that it was 'evident' is not evidence.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
