With relation to the $190k in shares at $0.15c, the directors...

Hi factual, thanks for your thoughts, but I have to respectfully disagree, and I'll share my perspective, and whilst I'm not trying to change your decision, I will try and give you and other holders another perspective.

Please don't interpret this as a personal attack, it definitely isn't, I understand your position based on information you provided previously.

i understand Paul earns $250k per year as the CEO of the company, as you point out these shares, if approved, equate to an extra $225k per year in shares.

Looking at the salaries of CEO's from other ASX listed companies I've invested in, Paul is not being paid anywhere near as much, and I strongly believe he has out performed every one of those other CEO's.

I'd much prefer Paul is paid in shares over cash as it reduces the financial burden on the company, there are tax benefits, and it also means he's further incentivised to ensure the share price goes up. In short paying him in shares means he can't just take the money and run.

With relation to the share price, I do not believe this is a reflection of the work Paul has done, nor the progress or position of the company, but more a direct reflection of the situation in Madagascar and the lack of official mining code.

The situation with the mining code is nothing new to investors who research and understand the business and country, and I expect the share price to jump significantly once the mining code is passed into law.

My justification for this is evidenced by the fact that Base Resources recently announced they were being acquired at a 140% premium to their recent share price. It's an all stock offer with a special dividend, so investors can still benefit from all of the upside of the project, and the synergies of broader integration to the acquiring business.

These shares are not a reward for just exploration success, they are primarily inventive for future continued progress on top of the exploration success, the recruitment of people like Graeme and progress towards production which will likely have minimal dilution to holders.

As Paul mentioned, any investment will likely be at a project level, so highly likely non dilutionary, but that is yet to be confirmed. I know I keep saying it, but getting into cashflow positive production with sub 150m shares is going to reap massive rewards for holders.

I agree that having share price performance triggers for options would be beneficial, but at the end of the day Paul isn't selling shares, so the extra $300k is only a paper asset, so if the company goes to $0 (highly unlikely), then it doesn't matter of we give him $300k, $3m or $300m in shares.

Paul hasn't sold and shares, he's participating in the raise and these are only positives.

With relation to the $190k in shares at $0.15c, the directors could buy those shares on market at the same price with zero benefit to the business.

This investment is a reflection of the faith these directors have in the business, and the fact that 100% of the money will go directly to progressing the projects and sustaining the business is again only positive.

We want directors who are invested and incentivised, and share price appreciation is what everyone wants.

I'll be voting in favour of all resolutions.