of course they would need to have some advantage but it does not...

of course they would need to have some advantage but it does not seem very one sided at all, see comparison to others below.
and for EVR it is very advantagous too, 5% discount to market only, we only pay 0.75% and that too was issued at an 80% premium.

the balance only after 50% is drawn down, meaning the fee payable is only 1.5% (or about 2% of total) if we drawdown only $17.5 million.
to add to that the fee (including the next 0.75%) will only be issued at higher prices (hopefully) not current prices.

all they got now is0.75%, hardly anything much for them to shout about, they definitely do see something that we don't.

the good part though is we are "not at the mercy of markets" as stated.

please look at some of the other so called "similar" facilities.
1) they are paid at least 5% fee UPFRONT
2) Minimum 10% discount to market
3) loads of options have to be issued - we have ZERO options issued, ie. less dilution
4) 1-2 year max - 5yrs in our case, way more than enought time for EVR to utilise it effectively and not rush.
5) minimum draw price, usually about 20-30% from when it was executed. - minimum draw price is $0.008 or 0.8 cents for us or almost 50% lower from execution price.

example of 1 is TMZ - they had to pay almost 30% in fees from the first drawdown, ie. $122k went to fee from $400k first payment and they had to issue options and they now can't draw down as the price is below 1.8c