Ann: Minbos launches P4 concept study, page-324

"down over 50% in 2023 so far from highs"

Yes, down 50% from a spike high but despite that and despite this volatility, this long correction (definitely nothing unusual for this stock) and the last couple of days of a few traders throwing in the towel and pushing it even lower again, MNB is also up around 7% over the last 12 months (7.5c to 8c today), 100% over three years (4c to 8c) and 300% or four fold over four years (2c to 8c). An inconvenient fact for a couple here. Picking a spike high to compare to is meaningless and misleading. Any fund reporting their performance picks a period of 1,2,3 years etc. Not a convenient spike low that would artificially inflate returns. Buying closer to the lows works well with this stock and yet two posters here are doing everything they can to discourage investors from doing what actually works best.
"They have no idea how this end of asx operates"
That would certainly apply to anyone that thinks it's not advisable to buy near lows on a stock that cycles through deep troughs and sharp rallies, has demonstrated great fundamentals through a DFS, has very low remaining capex requirements and that's very likely to be cash flow positive from next year.
Buying the peaks obviously hasn't worked well. Of course you can only know when the peaks have formed after the fact. Logic would say that buying near lows would work much better. The 5 year chart on this stock proves just that.

"Mr Q theres too many shares on issue for the pattern to be reversed."

Any one with any knowledge of the market would know that number of shares is meaningless on its own. It's only the number of shares multiplied by the sp that matters - the market cap.
A company with a market cap of $70mill that in a few years earns $70mill a year, would likely see its mc rise ten fold over that period. That's completely irrespective of the number of shares on issue. The shares on issue could be one million with a sp of $70 or one billion with a sp of 7c and the mc would be the same at $70mill. The only way the number of shares would have any bearing on the upside is if the number of shares increased significantly. Increasing the number of shares by 20% would increase the mc by 20% so upside potential would change from ten times to 8.3 times in the above example.
The above example is not just hypothetical.
MNB's mc is around that level and its DFS shows an after tax positive cash surplus of US$46mill in the fourth year of full production (page 46 DFS). That is A$70mill.
If they meet the DFS forecasts, that's the kind of return that we should expect - all emotions aside. Ten fold over a period of up to five years or a bit better than eight fold if the number of shares are increased by 20% to help finish off the last part of the funding. A cr is always possible but it is not being pursued by the company to complete the funding. That DFS does not include any upside potential from the green ammonia or from the P4 projects.

What's more interesting is three years later, those forecast earnings grow to US$82mill or A$124mill and they nearly double again from there at their peak.
If you believe a couple of HC posters, you might sell. If you put more credibility in a DFS, you'd probably be holding or buying the lows - if you don't let emotions cloud your judgement.

This stock is up four fold in four years despite delays and despite a very severe small cap bear market. If the DFS forecasts are even close, the next four years will yield much better returns -potentially an eight fold increase based on the DFS forecasts, not based on someone's opinion on the meaning of the current cycle low on a volatile stock in a currently very volatile sector.