I think there needs to be some recognition of the extra risk...

I think there needs to be some recognition of the extra risk that those of us putting up the money are taking on investing in what is effectively an illiquid asset for us. ILA went through a retail raise not so long ago and it was not a success, a second attempt to raise $3.5m from retail investors would have been impossible in my opinion. Adding to this many of the retail shareholders would have flipped their new stock or sold out to fund their allocation killing any SP rise. I wouldn't have participated in this raise if it contained an SPP for this reason.

ILA was stuck in a liquidity trap where the fear of the needed coming raise was holding down the SP making it impossible to raise the capital needed to drive both programs forward. The only way to get out of a liquidity trap is to have some outside group come in and provide the capital needed to get past the next couple of inflection points. If you want to see what a liquidity trap can do to a company you only need to look at what has happened to CHM.

The bottom line is without a raise being done at a price that reflects the risks we would not have participated in the raise. This would have left ILA facing being able to only raise part of the capital need from retail (at a massive discount) and still be left stuck in a liquidity trap. While I admit I am biased, I think it is best to raise the capital needed so your clinical programs (and SP) are not constrained by money and get on with generating value for all shareholders.