@gattertop, Post#: 48225702,

@itzgr82balive Post #: 48233456.

@StockMcduffins Post#: 44801664

@aes411 Post#: 48435879

@Aghiorlym Post #: 48402447

@itzgr82baliveSee Post#: 48420212.

@itzgr82balivePost#: 48457288

@AghiorlymPost#: 48402557

@NashaNashaPost #: 48463639

@itzgr82balivePost #: 48363710

@ChillingOutPost #: 48396373

@StockMcduffinsPost #: 48394308

@goforit00 Post #: 48335416

Title: A SeriousQuestion: Are ASX’s and VISA’s motives Corrupt?

This post is outputfirst in .jpg for readability and then in text for searchability. All links follow the jpg.

The intention of thispost is to pull many arguments together into one post. I apologise in advance for any posts forgotten, because I know there are many. I would encourage posters to put references to other important posts in the discussion that follows.

Think about it. What would be the most damaging to ISX’s brand? Answer: For people to believe ISX’s AML/CTF algorithms are ineffective or worse still, that ISX facilitated money laundering through iSignThis (ISX). This is the core of ISX’s business.

In ASX’s last announcement to the market concerning ISX, ASX refers tosection 14 of ASX Listing Rules Guidance Note 14 ASX Market Announcements Platform,which applies to all market announcements and which states:

‘An announcementfor release to the market must be accurate, complete and not misleading. Opinions expressed in an announcement shouldbe honestly held and balanced and should be clearly identified as a statementof opinion rather than a statement of fact …

MAP should only beused to publish information that is appropriately given to ASX under theListing Rules or the Corporations Act for publication to the market. Itshould not be used as a guise to publish materialthat is reallypromotional, political or tendentious in nature. An announcement forrelease to the market must also be couched in language that is appropriate forrelease to the market. It should be factual, relevant and expressed in aclear and objective manner. Emotive, intemperate or defamatory languageshould not be used …

ASX may refuse toaccept or publish an announcement from a listed entity that does not meet thestandards described above or may require the entity to lodge a correctiveannouncement.’

It appears that ASXdoesn’t believe that this guidance note applies to ASX since their questions,over, and over, and over, imply that ISX is being deceptive because ISX doeswill not announce to the market that VISA says they are terminating due toconcerns with ISX’s AML processes and procedures.

This is false anddeceptive for reasons discussed below and given this most recent announcementby ASX, ISX shareholders continue to be misinformed by ASX’s disclosures to themarket.

Specifically regarding:

1. Since VISAaudited ISX and gave it Principal Membership in Aug 2019, why and when did VISAstart their process which ended in a suspension of ISX in March 2020 for (allegedly)ISX’s deficient AML/CTF processes?

2. Did ASXpurposely output selected excerpts of the VISA communications that wouldinsinuate that ISX is in some way involved in AML and is it by design that ASXdoesn’t mention VISA’s new business direction which is being examined byregulators in AU and EU as anti-competitive?

3. Do ISX’sannouncements to the market breach disclosure listing rules?

4. Do VISAand ASX talk and are they collaborating?

5. Whythis? Why now?

Given:

1. ASX is experiencing difficulty producing its new Distributed Ledger (DL) CHESS replacement – now estimated ETA (or is it DOA?) in 2023. There are questions whether the project is cost justifiable without its “add-on” AML/CTF KYC/KYCC applications which are in direct competition with ISX and its subsidiaries. ISX subsidiary, PROBANX is collaborating with NSX to create its own DL settlement technology and is also in direct competition with the ASX. For views on this see @gattertop, Post #: 48225702, and myPost #: 48233456.

2. Visa has a change in directionand wants to relegate ISX to the same level as unregulated wallets such asApple Pay. In its ISX letter to shareholders 24-May-2020, ISX states:

“Visa seeks toclassify regulated electronic money issuers and purchase payment facilityproviders in the same way as unregulated wallets such as Apple Pay, and bringthem under the staged digital wallet operators (SDWO) rules. This includes theimpost of a US$100 million net tangible asset value (NTA) requirement forissuers of Electronic Money in Europe or for Purchased Payment Facilitiesoperators in Australia, who seek to also be concurrent principal acquiringmembers of Visa. The effect of theseproposed changes is that the Company would need to choose to be either aprincipal acquirer, or act as a standalone SDWO, or to have an NTA of more thanUS$100m if it chooses to be both acquirer and SDWO concurrently.”

See @StockMcduffins Post#: 44801664

1. Visa’s acceptance of ISX as aprincipal member and termination

On 8 August2019, ISX announced that it had entered into an agreement with VISA. In order to be approved for this agreement, ISX underwent “a complex process with the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) regulating card payments and access by institutions to the major card schemes, including Visa“. At that time, VISA assessed ISX on a number of serious criteria and, obviously, ISX passed. See @aes411 Post #: 48435879 for the criteria by which ISX was assessed by VISA.

What exactly happened, between thatassessment and March, when VISA suspended ISX due to “anomalies and issues, takencollectively,” which “ raise serious concerns about whether IsignThis isoperating appropriate programs to manage AML and Risk.”? Discussions between ISX and VISA would have been going on for a couple of months prior considering that ISX was only suspended in March. Therefore, it is probable that VISA started its process to “assess” ISX (so soon?) shortly around the time ASX produced its Final SOR and Christmas break (end Jan?) ended. Therefore, I would give it, approximately 3-4 months max after taking ISX as a principal member.

So, what happened in this timeframe? This is what happened:

a) InAustralia, regarding VISA, NOTHING! Not a single transaction processed between approval, VISA suspension and VISA termination,

b) On 2October, 2019 ASX suspended ISX due to what appears to shareholders as if ASXdidn’t really know the reason for the suspension. It appeared as if ASX intended to ask a lot of questions over every aspect of ISX’s business in the hopes of finding something. Now, it appears that ASX is even more devious – it appears to have a strategy to ask ISX questions which ASX has no right to ask and ISX has no legal obligation to answer, such as to provide the advice ISX’s lawyer gave ISX. As a result, because ISX refuses to answer, ASX considers it now has “an additionalbasis under Listing Rule 17.3.1 to continue ISX’s current suspension and abasis under Listing rule 17.12 to remove ISX from the ASX official list”. I ask, is this just ignorance or a deliberate strategy? It is a reasonable assumption that it is a strategy.

c) A vast number of AFR, SMH and other media false and misleading articlesconcerning the ISX suspension which ASX has made even more visible and tried togive more credibility by mentioning the articles in both the interlocutoryproceedings and in their current defence.

d) ASX produced its final SOR end January 2020 with official output endApril. “False and misleading conduct” is the basis of ISX’s court case against ASX. And, even more importantly,

e) VISA has changed directions and VISA needs a reason to cancel ISX’s existing agreement.

2. Did ASXselectively choose parts of ISX/VISA communications?

What we do know is:

a) ASX didnot include in this release ISX’s responses to VISA,

b) Theselected excerpts comprise parts of 7 of total ~200 documents and communicationsi.e. ~ +/- 3.5% of the total documents and communications between ISX and VISA.

c) Theexcerpts focus on some nebulous AML/CTF dispute from which we cannot decern VISA’sreal issue,

d) No excerptdeals with the dispute between VISA and ISX regarding VISA’s direction intowhich ACCC and “a key European regulator” are looking into VISA’santi-competitive behaviour.

e) Nowhere didthis latest release contain the pertinent information to the market thatneither AUSTRAC, the EU Regulator or any other Regulator is investigating ISXfor AML/CTF breaches? This was in the same letter to shareholders from which ASX chose other information to quote.

Does the absence of these facts support the ASX’s own requirement thatany announcement to the market: “should be factual, relevant and expressed in a clearand objective manner”? It is a reasonable assumption that itdoes not.

See Post #: 48457288, Post #: 48420212. and @Aghiorlym Post #: 48402447 and for more on this.

3. Do ISX’sAnnouncements Breach Continuous Disclosure Rules?

I can hear the anti-ISX posters yelling “Foul! - The announcement wasn’t about AML/CTL, it was because ISX didn’t disclose VISA and breached continuous disclosure listing rules!” My answer to this simply, is this: Although Clayton Utz(CU) did say ISX could have probably worded its disclosures better, CU did say, in their opinion, ISX did not breach continuous disclosure rules.

And Karantzis states: “I have been asked several times, and I canconfirm that the Independent Expert (Clayton Utz) had access to all thecorrespondence ASX referred to in its release yesterday, plus additionalcorrespondence, timelines, notes and interviews with management and the boardwhen reviewing the Visa matter. The expert report was a $200k exercise at thecost of shareholders, which was comprehensive and conducting by independent,unbiased, experienced legal professionals. “

The manner in which ASX asks its questions about each of ISX’sannouncements to the market concerning visa does create distrust in the ISX announcements,but viewed in the light of the facts, they are actually quite true:

· ISX did not believe the basis of the dispute was AML but VISA’s changein direction which was anti-competitive and which if ISX could not convinceVISA to change would result in ISX deciding to leave VISA – i.e. they were innegotiation until at least May,

· ISX was clearly still negotiating until May as referenced (althoughrather opaquely) in the ASX release,

· Although ISX had been told they were terminated, ISX’s relationship wasnot yet actually terminated given ISX and VISA had to work together to offloadISX clients to other principle members and this would take approximately 90days as stated in the 24 May Announcement. This takes the actual break of the relationship with VISA into August 2020.

Therefore, I can be forgiven my conviction that this release is moreabout the spreading rumours about AML than about ISX breaching disclosure rulesand will not be the “magic bullet” that will save ASX in its court case withISX.

Also, while we are discussing ISX answering ISX questions. There have been some suggestions that J. Karantzis is belligerent, doesn’t respect ASX and should be replaced. People should be reminded that although J. Karantzis is the person who signs the communications as CEO, there is nothing that is said or done regarding this serious issue that is not approved by the ISX board and which most probably goes through a legal process. The fact is, J. Karantzis is the leader with respect to the innovative ideas of ISX and his replacement would be one of the very few reasons I would consider selling my shares in ISX. Could that be one of the motives for constantly attempting to put Karantzis in a bad light?

Additionally, anyone who thinks that ISX should show absolute respectfor ASX or other regulatory bodies, should ask themselves the following questions:

· Does the regulatory body deserve its respect?

· Does the regulatory body treat ISX with respect?

I would say, no. Bodies are really people and there is evidence of corruption everywhere at the moment.

See Post #: 48420212 and Post #: 48363710; @StockMcduffinsPost#: 48394308

4. Do VISAand ASX or ASIC talk?

It is a reasonableassumption ASX and or ASIC and VISA do talk and it is a reasonable assumptionthat they are collaborating – but who is using who, I ask? Note: It appears to advantage both ASX and VISA for ISX to fail. ISX has VISA investigated for anticompetitive behaviour and ISX is challengin ASX in court.

If ASX/ASIC andVISA don’t talk to each other, then how would ASIC have known data was illegallytransferred to AU where

· ASIC canlegally ask for it from VISA

· ASIC canlegally pass it to ASX under section 127(4B) of the ASIC act, and

· ASX can release it to the market 127(4FA) of the ASIC Act to enable ASX todisclose SELECTED excerpts to the market under the guise of “informing themarket”.

Again, frankly, not disclosing this is NOT informing the market.

5. Whythis? Why now?

There are a number of possible reasons forwhy this, why now. Some of these reasons include:

a) A need to divert attentionregarding ASX’s failure to deliver the CHESS replacement resulting in a scope redefinitionand postponement of delivery of the project to 2023?

b) A need to divert attentionregarding shareholdings in Digital Asset Holdings in U.S., DAH’s directionchange? See @NashaNasha Post#: 48463639

c) A further need to destroy ISX’scredibility, since ISX, through its subsidiary PROBANX is successfully creatingcompeting settlement software?

d) A need to divert the exposureof the breadth and depth of Corporate AML/CTF corruption and the inequity of ASX’sactions regarding ISX vs. other corporate entities. See Post #: 48363710; @StockMcduffinsPost#: 48394308

e) The need to discredit ClaytonUtz clearing ISX for breach of VISA disclosure issues?

f) A desire to have just one morereason to suspend/delist ISX?

g) A desire to portray what ASXbelieves might be a “magic bullet” to destroy ISX’s court case?

h) A desire to turn a verypositive ISX shareholder community against ISX?

Plainly, it is just not going towork. Nor will delisting ISX. If ISX shareholders are vocal and committed now, it will remain even more so with letters to government officials and HC posts under other forums if ISX is delisted. And delisting certainly will not stop the court case and may just possibly damage ASX’s defense and bolster ISX’s position even further. See @ChillingOutPost #: 48396373 and @Dineen Post #: 47334647,