Hi rwk,
I don't know where to begin with your post. It seems you believe I and dig are taking positions which hardly resemble the positions we have taken.
No one has said that because WXP failed this is a proof of a lack of discipline. That is an argument from final causes. What was said was that funding a venture for a long period after it was clear they were unable to discover a functional business model was reckless.
No one has argued Wave should not have taken risks. This is a straw man argument. What they have said is they should have been disciplined about evaluating them.
The fact that Wave is finally getting some traction after a decade with its trusted computing solution is certainly a good thing and results from Wave's vision. No one has disputed it. But vision and discipline are different things.
You say the side issues are moot. An odd statement considering the dilution WXP engendered remains germane: it leaves its genetic residue in the value of each unit of stock.
Have you heard of the slippery slope fallacy? No one has argued that Wave's management should be paid nothing. They have argued variously that management seemed over-compensated relative to their performance at the time, that they were taking little risk, that their interests and shareholders were not matched etc.
I agree that Wave's vision has panned out. But this does not exclude an altogether different truth that Wave's board has appeared to lack discipline in some of its decisions. Perhaps one reason is that a number of the company's investors will laud any kind of decision and will happily collude in their extravagance.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
