@MaryJane55 ....you are missing the point.... substance over...

@MaryJane55 ....you are missing the point.... substance over form....

.... the company is still losing more money than it makes... which means in layman's term that you are paying people to buy your product...hence the loss... other more specific facts to date are:

• Total Shares post IPO: 126M ....Now 210M... in other words: dilution without any value accretion;

• Annual Loss post at IPO ~$946K ...now ~$44M (latest Q extrapolated)- that is >44X;
• Total funds raised to date $103M....spent ~$60M of it on something.: $1M Salaries?, Downtown New York offices, acquiring loss making companies for revenue, defending lawsuits they have caused etc.
• Joel Macdonald $250,000 salary when listed...now $1M...
• Bane Hunter $240,000 salary when listed...now $1M....
• Share price is still trading only ~20% of what they raised at on Dec 2017 ($4.00);
• Zero updates on the rationale for accepting $4/shares money- 2.5 years and counting;
• So after all of the above...now the interesting bit...why would it make sense to pay them now 20M of performance shares? So the first question:

What are Performance Shares?

Performance shares (as a form of stock compensation) are allocations of company stock given to managers and executives only if certain company-wide performance criteria are met, such as earnings per share targets. Performance shares are meant to drive the management team of a company to prioritize activities that positively impact shareholder value.

Understanding Performance Shares

The purpose of performance shares is to tie the interests of executives and managers to the interests of shareholders. Companies may also structure performance share plans based cash flow from operating activities, total shareholderreturn, return on capital, or a combination of several gauges of how well the company is doing over a set period.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/performanceshares.asp.

..so again, could you please enlighten me ...what is the merit for 'performance' share's under the definition of above when they have already increased their own salaries by 400% since the IPO? As per definition: which of their actions had:

• a positive impact on shareholder value;
• in the interest of shareholders, especially for shareholders who paid over $1/share to fund their $1m/annum salaries & expensive offices.

... also ,as per prospectus: The key performance metrics used to measure the growth of GetSwift are:

a) # of monthly transactions completed using the platform;

b) # of client industry verticals serviced; and

c) # of client countries

...we haven't seen any update on the stats in the last 18 months... so how do they justify they have met 'performance targets' as per IPO?

...again...I still think there might be merit for this when they have proved their value add ...so a potential timing issue....but based on the disclosed facts to date ... there is still no merit for 'performance' shares....

...my two cents...