The problem with most conspiracy theories is that there will always be some potential for an utterly outlandish plot requiring an 'evil genius' to do the unthinkable as a way of achieving the unconscionable. E.g. the legendary pedophile ring operating out of a pizza parlour basement run by lizard people from a galaxy far away that has taken over the world's governments. Yep. That is always possible. But just how likely would that be in reality? Just because you can imagine it does not make it more likely than some version of the mediocrity that normally goes on in life. The people who spin these things seem to have no grasp of probability, coupled with a vivid imagination with no filters. All they then need is a public channel to promote their stuff and an audience with similar mental characteristics to their own. ("make lizards great again! make lizards great again!) The problem arises and is exacerbated because the consequences of being cheated are often far bigger than we can handle. The risk failure poses for us becomes too high for our innate level of social trust to simply ignore it. We all have overstretched trust issues; it's a fact, but it's nothing really new. Our society is based entirely on mutual trust, and this often wears thin when everything we need is under existential stress. We want to trust the people we ought to be able to trust, but we struggle with our inability to trust anyone we do not know, everyone might be out to get us or scam us, and the fear of being cheated and hurt by them makes those lizard dudes look not just remotely possible in theory, but way more likely than they feasibly could be. In other words the dastardly conspiracy seems only too probable. The problem with this is that when it looks that way to us we find we have moved from prudent cautiousness to abject paranoia. That is not healthy. We have ceased to accept our part of the social contract on which our entire social order is based. We only take cash, in advance, and our palms sweat even as we bite the coins. Life is war, us vs everyone else.
I stopped reading a number of AKP posters assumptions and predictions long ago when I decided they were either trying hard to spread FUD to encourage others to sell cheap, or believed it wholeheartedly themselves. I put such posters onto ignore. Unless I could be persuaded otherwise I very much doubt I would entertain anything they have predicted since then. If anyone else would care to briefly and bluntly summarise their case I would be pleased to read it.
The way things stand I am currently expecting the actual announcements from the company to actually be followed through on. I thus expect to see the following happening within the next few months:
Gen-II chips will most likely not be ready for demo at the AGM. This is based on what has been announced. Gen-I could possibly be demo'd if they have enough to populate a demo board. Yet I would assume they would be more likely to regard that as an unhelpful first exposure that would not show the tech at its best. Satisfying SH anxieties is simply not going to be their top priority. They know that the final denouement will do that very convincingly.
Gen-II chips are likely to be available and fully tested 'some time in June', so I would then expect an EGM to be called solely to demo to shareholders and maybe some invitees from the press and industry. That will be a major 'public demo' opportunity, but that may best be done via two separate meetings aimed differently at those groups. Holders who have been involved for a long time will want different info concerning the company's plans than what will be provided to the press + industry for instance.
At some point in time EM will manage to send cash overseas to buy the agreed shares they are eager to purchase. When that will be is unknowable until the permission actually comes through - if it comes through at all. My expectation is that EM will be very keen to buy in because they understand better than most what the potential for profit is. And they will have have had some pretty deep and meaningful dealings with the company in order to gauge their sincerity and genuineness as well as their technology. And that confidence includes a significant prepayment for production of a large volume of product, with more to follow imminently.
That could require a further cash raise, but I doubt if that will be done at a discount!
So again, while one always has to ask "who can you trust" one then has to make some kind of forward looking decision based on what concrete actions have occurred. It seems to me that EM has done that. So have I. Others have not. That is all that can be said.
This is my personal opinion only and entirely, so don't trust it as financial advice! DYOR. GLTAH.
(20min delay)