“Why do you say I'm ignoring it? There is no evidence of that....

“Why do you say I'm ignoring it? There is no evidence of that. I'm treating it like it doesn't matter.”

What you’ve said indicates you’ve misunderstood the mechanism of an option. Options do matter and are valuable. That’s worse than ignoring it.

“Capped! Success-based! But it’s not success-based on trial results to give out shares on trial results that aren't in yet.”

No, because they executed the option so didn’t need to go down the route of royalties.

“And Capped means they are known”

Capped at what? What if the cap is $5M p.a.? You can’t answer the first part so you can’t rule out the second.

Do you know that there is an option expiry on purchase (I don't and I don't think there needs to be) ?

Options almost always have expiry periods. Perpetual options are extremely rare. Options are also quite common in licensing deals.

“I actually prefer keeping the IP owners in without giving them a way to sell their shares and walk away”

Why? You make it sound like they have levers that can be pulled to accelerate clinical progress. They don’t. It’s a simple comparison of $X vs $Y for Cynata - and if one becomes cheaper than the other then you proceed that way. You also make it sound like your personal investment is fixed. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you don’t like the way the company is behaving, you can sell your shares within minutes.

“there is nothing I can do if most people don't give a damn and are willing to be paid off”

Sorry…what?

“You and artephius haven't established any rational basis for believing in millions in royalies”

It is actually extremely simple to get to $millions p.a.

Sell 1 million CYPatches at $1000/each

Royalty of 3% per patch to tekcyte

$30M to tekcyte. P.a.

“That could have been disclosed under NDA to any potential suitor when the time is right”

I absolutely think the terms of the tekcyte license would have been shared with commercial partners.

Question for you: What is the implication of a company partnering with Cynata for CYP-006?

Answer: The partner believes the product will be commercially successful.

If a partner thinks the product will be successful, then at some point in the future Cynata would receive a royalty stream of a % of sales. Then they pay mid single digit % royalties to WARF. Then they potentially have another royalty to pay to tekcyte. If a big pharma company is prepared to license CYP-006, then it makes complete sense to eliminate the tekcyte royalty. If the expiry period is before results and you’re reasonably confident of a partnership, then it also makes sense to execute it for 900k shares/$230k.

“You guys don't actually put enough independent analysis into your pumps…And Kilian too, now as CEO has the main role of being able to put forward a positive narrative - and he doesn’t”

I’m not pumping. So far I disagree about your take regarding Killian. I think he has done a reasonable job. Where he will prove how good he is commercially is when we have clinical study reports from DFU and GvHD (and renal and OA) and how he manages this and the cashflow to maximise the per share value of the company