OCC Trading, page-1328

@CyberBiotech I don't disagree with much of what you say, but I sent you the listing requirements for NASDAQ. Besides the huge extra reporting, governance, legal, accounting and auditing costs, OCC presently fails on a few areas of the listing requirements on the NASDAQ which I already sent you:

https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/assets/initialguide.pdf

IT DOESN'T PRESENTLY MEET THE CRITERIA. Pay particular attention to the PCAOB and global listings - I have to with big investments in Xpeng and Baidu (dual listings) - which the company would have to adhere to....it fails on standard 4 on Total Assets for example.

In the future? Absolutely it should list. Particularly as the majority of its business likely, initially at least, in the US.

Opthea is about the smallest present Aussie company with a dual listing I know of (funnily enough I have bought recently) and that's a $400 million mkt cap, which probably listed under standard 4 on the NASDAQ originally.

Perhaps you are suggesting an OTC or Pink sheet listing?

Nonetheless, I absolutely agree:

"Milestones and successes would be rewarded with higher valuation for the stock by US investors and funds. Which would allow OCC to turbo charge its growth."

The Aussie capital mkts and coverage are indeed crap for Bio-techs - the 'idiotic, unprepared, ignorant, uninterested and smugly proud' analyst I posted that you rightly taunt was Shaws by the way.

....a future US listing definitely something to consider, when it fits the criteria. Perhaps raise it with management.