ASIC v ISX Hearing, page-106

Well said, @NashaNasha in post Post #: 66525991. My thoughts exactly, as I was reconsidering BjReplay and others yesterday's posts this morning. Your post is short, sweet, exact and meaningful.
My more lengthy response @BJReplay :Post #: 66510637

In post Post #: 64670284 I argued that the 15% was taken out of context and that the 15% was based on the projected revenue for the end of financial year 2018. When we look at the actual facts which include that multiple technical problems caused that revenue not to be earned until after SP1(ISX) implemented its own transaction network in late 2018/early 2019 to resolve those problems then it becomes clear that this 15% was a realistic figure in that context. I still dispute that the revenue is non-recurring, but that is not the point - because it is recurring, just not generally with the same customer unless there are subsidiaries that also need help in integrating their systems as was true of one or two of these 2018 customers.

In 2019 ISX increased its revenue from $6,091,004 to $29,853,045. This is an increase in revenue of 390%. ASX statistics of ASX listed companies state that on average revenue is increased by only 7.7% in any given year. Only a fool would believe that a good portion of this revenue should not have occurred in 2018. Since much of this revenue occurred in the first quarter of 2019 I have taken 60% of the increase in revenue and applied it to 2018. When this is done, the % of the so-called "non-recurring" revenue to the total revenue is 16% "within cooee" of the 15%. @BJReplay's (and the ASIC's) statement of that it was 75% is non-original, opportunistic, and misleading.

In the @BjReplay's post of the afternoon proceedings, Post #: 66516530, he "reports" that ASIC states that JK referenced the VISA termination several times in communications. I really cannot see the point. This does not prove that JK thought that there was nothing he could do to convince VISA that there is no basis for the termination and therefore reverse their decision. The fact that ASIC/ASX was more adamant that ISX announce that before ISX had completed its rebuttals and negotiations says more about ASIC/ASX than ISX- especially since the reason VISA was terminating had nothing to do with ISX allowing AML transactions through its network and this is the core of ISX's business. We have don't this to death in these threads so I won't repeat.

All in all, sounds like a non-first day of proceedings. Ready for today's....