Criticism is not the same as wishing for failure.
To the contrary, there are many critics that do so in an effort to AVOID failure.
People take issue with the manner in which Matt has taken his idea and grown it.
I personally take issue with the selective responses from management.
Ironridge is a perfect example. Ironridge was only discovered because an investor found a filing made by them. You were asked about the filing, and made NO COMMENT, indicating it was not a CBAI filing.
First off, it appears it should have been a CBAI filing as well. Most investors would consider the settlement of a legal claim a material event. CBAI did not. There seems to be a clear pattern developing here - Matt will PR the slightest positive development, yet not comment on or disclose negative events.
But once discovered, why in the world does Matt persist in silence on the subject. Our company is involved in litigation and settlement of claims, and we don't deserve to know the details?
A prime example of why I have no trust in Matt. In my opinion, a lie by omission is just as bad as a dishonest statement.
So spare us the "poor Matt being dragged down" speech. He is in hot water due directly to his actions and inactions. I find the new approach by management and IR to be offensive. He is the CEO of a public company. I would say that if he can't take the heat of critics, get out of the kitchen - but we can't afford his severance package. Even so, poor Matt better develop a much thicker skin if he intends to continue dilution...er, business as usual.
What is the new approach? "Quit living in the past". As amazing as it is to me, Matt has actually decided to just give himself a clean slate. Without the slightest acknowledgement of any error whatsoever, Matt just wants a do-over. Incredible.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
