Adding on this comment you made (after having a better read...

Adding on this comment you made (after having a better read through the annual report), if you had even a slight read of the actual financials you would realise you sound quite silly screaming "cost blowout".

The "cost blowout" you incorrectly cite is related largely to the impairment of an intangible asset, mandated by accounting standards. In other words, there was no actual cash outflow, and expenses excluding that impairment are relatively in line with last year. They are generating strong growth, at least in the US and China, with minimal additional expenditure (hence why the cash level has hardly changed). This alludes to their strong operating leverage, and the fact we should expect profitability to come quite quickly once greater scale has been achieved. The impairment was related to 2RT, which could indicate reduce confidence in securing a partnership (but it sounds like it was more a technicality as to why they had to do the impairment).

Whilst examining the annual report I also noticed that director renumeration is very low relative to other companies. The total compensation received by ALL directors is actually less than that received by individual directors of many of the zero-revenue generating companies listed on the ASX. For example, I note that a company with the ticker CU6 which you (@Counterfiat) hold (which recently reported ZERO revenue and a massive loss of $25 million) pays its two executive directors $1,000,000 EACH, despite burning through shareholder funds with zero sales to show for it. I am not intending to attack any holders of this company, and it could be a great success (I have not researched it), but it is worth having a think about.

The low renumeration in the case of EYE (despite recording strong sales growth) is a very good indication that our management are practicing their promise of aiming to deliver strong returns to shareholders. They are not merely using the ASX to fund lavish lifestyles, they are focused on growing the company and delivering strong returns to shareholders first and rewarding themselves after, which I find to be very reassuring.




Not trying to have a fight with you though, I am just not sure why you come here screaming misinformation about "cost blowouts" (which is not happening) when the only stock you have a "held" sentiment for doesn't make a single dollar in revenue and records large losses year after year.