In the unlikely event that theywill answer investor's questions...

In the unlikely event that theywill answer investor's questions I have 10.

Question 1

On 16 July 2021, consistent withthe all other ASX Market Releases Buddy refers to itself as “a leader in IoT and cloud based solutions for makingspaces smarter” (pardon me for choking - something in my throat)

• Buddy’s Ohm product has failed togain traction in the market despite great fanfare around reputable distributionpartners, most or all of which seem to have fallen foul.
• Buddy has seemingly abandoned itsoriginal plans around big data.
• Buddy’s latest venture is thesale of connected light bulbs.
• The Operating update is limitedto the sale of a range of LIFX light bulbs, an ongoing debacle of debtreshuffling, confirmation that three Directors resigned and unconvincingcommentary on yet another dispute with a third party.

With the company onlife support following a series of financial failings and inability to gainmarket traction and considering the above status of business activities how doyou justify the claim that BUD is a leader in IoT and cloud-based solutions formaking spaces smarter?

Question 2

On Feb 8 CEO David McLauchlansigned off a market release that announced positive “adjusted” EBITDA (whateveris meant by “adjusted” but suspected to be a term to mislead or confusereaders) and results for H2 2012 anticipated to more than double the prioryear’s corresponding period

Noting that this isnot the first time that the ASX has had cause to challenge the company’srelease, does the CEO accept that he is negligent in releasing incorrect andmisleading information?

If not why not? Thebuck stops with the CEO and this is clearly failure of a director failing his fiduciaryduty.

Question 3

Following the release by the CEOof the above mentioned, unchecked information, that led to a major misleadingof the market the company announced the ‘resignation’ of three non--executivedirectors which appears to be nothing more than a veiled attempt to show sternaction being taken.

However the person accountable isthe CEO as the signatory of the release.

Is there a defendablereason that the CEO has not resigned instead?

Question 4

BUD recently announced that “theCompany is in the process of identifying board members with retail,manufacturing and technology experience to complement the Board"

Neither of these threedisciplines are remotely related to corporate governance and financialmanagement.

Given that the boardis evidently grossly lacking these critical disciplines why has the company notsought to shore up this major gap in skill set, if for nothing else than tocover for the obvious weakness of the CEO?

In its response to the ASX query,which took almost three months and was not delivered until a new financial yearwhich if completed in a reasonable timeframe would have allowed shareholders tocut their losses before the tax year, the Company claims to have taken thefollowing steps to further improve its cash position and ensure that it hassufficient cash to continue to operate as a going concern:

Unfortunately, the company doesnot understand the meaning of the work “ensure” as none of the following“ensure” that it has sufficient cash to continue to operate as a going concern.

Question 5

Claim 1: The Company has established newpayment terms with its largest customer (Amazon) such that Amazon customerpurchase orders are now payable one day after approval by Amazon. This willhave the effect of allowing Amazon customer purchase orders which are typicallypaid 45 to 60 days after invoice approval by Amazon to now be paid one dayafter approval (such approvals typically taking up to 7 days after the date ofissue of an invoice). These new payment terms apply to existing and futureAmazon receivables.

Reality 1: Improved cash flow isentirely contingent on Amazon both: making sales; and being able to supplyproduct.

Do you accept the factthat this arrangement does NOT “ensure” BUD has sufficient cash to continue tooperate as a going concern

Question 6

Claim 2: The Company has offered otherretail partners discounts to purchase product on short-window payment terms,which, if accepted by those retail partners, will shorten the payment cycle.

Reality 2: Key words in this claimare “if accepted”. You already concede that success of this action iscontingent on that arrangement suiting other retail partners. I expect that hadany of these retail partners embraced such an offer then the response wouldhave said as much.

Do you accept the factthat this claim does NOT “ensure” BUD has sufficient cash to continue tooperate as a going concern?

Question 7

Claim 3: The Company has movedadditional inventory from B2B sales (ie. selling to retail customers) to B2Csales (ie. selling direct to consumers on websites such as lifx.com). This willpotentially have the effect of increasing revenue, increasing margins andconverts inventory to cash faster than via B2B customers (noting that subjectto any unknown future shortages, key B2B customer orders are being filled inparallel).“

Reality 3: Key words in this claimare “will potentially have the effect”.

Do you understand thefact that “potential” and “certainty” are completely different states and ifso, do you accept that this claim does NOT “ensure” BUD has sufficient cash tocontinue to operate as a going concern?

Question 8

Claim 4: The Company is in advancednegotiations with its primary manufacturer, Eastfield Lighting (Hong Kong) Co.Limited, in respect to deferred payment arrangements regarding certain amountspayable to Eastfield”

Reality4 : Notwithstanding the factthat the only successful negotiations BUD has closed to date has been to throw$30 million to the original LIFX owners (now departed with wads of cash).

Do you understand thefact that “in negotiations” and “executed a contract” are completely differentstates and if so, do you accept that this claim does NOT “ensure” BUD hassufficient cash to continue to operate as a going concern?

Question 9

Claim 5: the Company is further reducingcash-based expenses where appropriate.

Reality 5: This is a hollow andbaseless statement, throw away if you will.

Can you confirm thatthe Payments to the CEO and board of directors who presided over this debaclewill not be receiving further compensation until such time that the company hasrecovered fiscally and is no longer in danger of insolvency?

Question 10

Do you accept that theonly way that BUD can “ensure” it has sufficient cash to continue to operate asa going concern, at least in the foreseeable future, is to continue to raisecapital from incentivised investors as obscene discounts to the market price,which will only ever see existing shareholders’ holdings value diminished giventhere is no possible way of raising cash at a premium when trying to avoidinsolvency?