I think what he trying to do is to get us to look past the disclosure issues whether guilty or not and start asking what the shares were issued for? They say services rendered, so what were the services?
Someone posted yesterday saying they wanted clarification on what services were rendered and what the cost of those services were if paid in cash. That makes the most sense to me. A lot of the share issues mentioned in the article were ratified by shareholders at the 2017 AGM. I think a lot of us just say this as a formality and didn't really dig in to the detail.
Note the statement at the bottom of the last image. This was a good enough explanation at the time but now it seems with all the suspicion we need more details.
There has been a large number of shares issued in the last 3 months as well which some can be accounted to going to sales team members for reaching sales targets, some to service providers and some were options conversions.
It's either that these shares were issued for services (whatever they are) or there's something nasty going on. I'm trying to consider both options as the share price went from 20c up to $4.98 in 1 year it makes the issue of shares look bad. I don't believe this is a ponzi scheme but I do think it is possible that the company has been propping friends up by issuing cheap shares. Now all that can be cleared up if we can see a statement of work and what the market value of those services are.
Does this make sense and any questions?
