With respect GR (and this is not directed to you as you do...

With respect GR (and this is not directed to you as you do profess to be g a supporter) start ups need the "inventor" at the helm to explain the vision and who is passionate and knowledgable about the "product". Nobody can sell the vision like the visionary.

Professional CEOs are not visionary and they won't work for the money these guys are on!

I am sick and tired of hearing the "snouts in the trough" from those who have never been a Tom or Dick or Harry (as you suggest can be a CEO). Having been a Tom, Dick and Harry I say good luck because you are not paid enough at the start up end of the market. Much easier and generally more profitable to be paid as a consultant.

Too many have conveniently failed to remember that this was a reverse listing with a shell filled with a bit of cash and a few failed investments and a nearly clean vehicle.

The guys have sold the company the tech. They are being paid to run the company and the shares are are compensation for successfully reaching milestones which validate the value of their invention and REPRESENT THE SALE PRICE FOR THE TECHNOLOGY!

Raul could have maintained his software development firm and earned more than the income he and his company is receiving. Both he and Gary could have sold the concept to a bigger company and sat back and received real cash.

If they fail, they have effectively sold their tech for next to nothing. Their shares are in escrow.

How do you think they feel when they see what the numbskulls here suggest is a worthless piece of shite. I bet they wish they had never heard of Australia's lax listing rules.

Their technology is currently like our shares, worth less than what we thought. At least that is what the market is saying about the tech, business strategy and mobile market. Market gets it wrong all the time.

The good thing is our money, which we paid to share in their technology, has also advanced their strategy for a global rollout. They know what is needed for tech to reach "Industry standard".

If they are right, this product will be the industry standard for mobile connectivity. Think about the value of that opportunity!

And for the small investment we have made we might share in something that big. Those who have made too big an investment will be squillionaires if they are right (IMO). The rest of us will bash our teeth and wish we bought more! That's the risk IMO.

Don't blame the boys for not being expert at everything. They have surrounded themselves with experts and they are paying them peanuts or at least that is what some here (and the market) are saying the shares are worth.

About now, if they read these threads, they are probably thinking they should have taken the money and not the box and got a cushy Consulting role with the new owners.

And see how much money and how hard you need to work and how much grief you get working in Silicon Valley. Hard to comprehend for those working for quid but if you think you can afford tech experts of this calibre for the money they are being paid, wake up!

I say lucky for shareholders they took the box!

Now we get the chance, not certainty, to be a part of something bigger than most, if not all here could achieve.

I think a little respect from shareholders would be nice. However I point out to the boys if they ever bother to read the shite here that most of the disrespect comes from non-holders or those purely focused on the share price and who really have NFI about what the company is really working toward.

If anybody thinks I am being condescending, I definitely am but will readily apologise to any who have posted here in the last three months who can explain to us in tech terms why the tech needs the land grab and quick!