where to and when?, page-27

It is an interesting subject, that of directors interests.
I recommend going back and taking a close look at the original disclosure document for the initial float, as III.
more or less around 5-6 parties got $4 million worth of shares at the list price.
Do you think they forked out $4 mill for that? I doubt it.
I would guess they floated as somewhere near ten baggers from seed capital or assets. Note that the vast majority have amounted to zilch since then. Mt C was jagged later on.
Despite the significant dilution since then, I highly doubt their initial investment is at anywhere near the risk that subsequent equity takers are at.
Unsurprisingly, IMO, most if not all seed 'contributors' still hold.
Pretorius is, I believe, the only past or present board member who has substantially bought in on market or close to it.
As treefeed rightly points out, this investment may well be chickenfeed compared to the mug punter, in terms of an individual's expendability.
So as tempting as it is to laud board members investment as a safe and sure signal, quite often this is not the case it is made out to be, even though their belief in the projects, whilst subjective (and by self admission not specifically 'valued'), may be honest.
Now they have a good chunk of paid up infrastructure and if it were performing to expectations that would be nice, but as it seems not to be, the real hurt is not, imo, not on the board. It is on everyone else who has put in good money pursuing the dream.
It's a tough gig, the world of the speccie, but please try and understand whose got the most real skin in the game.
just my opinion so DYOR.