I started writing this in another thread, but thought I'd start...

I started writing this in another thread, but thought I'd start a new one, as it kind of stands on its own.

With regards to the purchase of DIASource, the shortfall in cash at the time of purchase is what the BOD looks back to as where the spiral of questionable (aka stupid) decisions re financing came from.  The SH's cannot and should not be blamed for not stumping up more of their hard-earned after years of CR's with no ROI.  Many simply did not have or could not justify throwing any more money at this company based on promise.

So why, then, would they insist on pursuing the purchase?  As Dolce says, this was a lifeline.  I go back to the conversation I had with Bouris at the 2015 AGM where he indicated if the purchase of DIA didn't go through, the business would likely be done.  Partly because they expended so much resource (time and money) into the purchase and partly because their ability to raise any more cash was pretty much done.  They put all of their company eggs in the DIA basket, imho.

Yes, the SP is now shite, but the company is still breathing, so the purchase of DIA will be deemed a failure, but I'm not so sure it didn't achieve what it was set out to do in that it staved off likely death of ADO two years ago.

So here we are looking into the future.  We had someone in AS who was bringing formal structure via governance to a business desperately in need of it (outside looking in perspective).  He's no longer a part of the BOD, so what next.  I'm holding onto hope for a CEO who will build on what AS started and insist on fundamentally rebuilding this company with focus on commercial viability for proven technology.

I've been banging on about where our technology finds its path of least resistance to market for a while now.  Industry application would likely be the go, but there are many opportunities we haven't explored that require minimal regulatory approval that could see commercial returns in the short term.  They may not be the blue-sky opportunity energy/batteries represent, but they could bring in some money to fund the business.

There have been a few posts about whether or not the technology is viable.  Simply put, it is.  It has been proven through multiple sources.  The question isn't if it works, the question is can we get it to market?  Diagnostics provide a huge revenue potential, but we've always had the barriers to market in status-quo products by mega-vendors who don't want to lose out on the millions/billions on products already in-market.  Shifting an entire industry because they may save a few dollars here or there just doesn't happen.  You may see them introduce it into existing products to increase margin where possible, but not until the pipeline of products are expended and the regulatory approvals are commercially viable.  It's simple maths.

Looking at revenue streams where we have the ability to make returns within the next 12-24 months is where we should be focusing.  Energy is one of them, as the entire market has accepted the current products are not sufficient to support new technology being produced at lightening pace.  We are well placed in this market with our advanced patent position (relative to competitors) and positive independent reports coming out.  We need a CEO who can now sell the ever-loving bajesus out of the product to secure an early deal (exclusivity) and/or find a corner-stone investor willing to take a punt on the promise.  It won't be easy, but there are other minnows in Australia making it happen, so no reason we can't.

Re-branding is necessary at this time, imho.  We need a more relevant name to reflect the product.  The marketing types amongst us can confirm or deny, but this is pretty obvious to most it seems.

I get that people are mad about DIASource, but if you can take a step away from how we were treated as SH's and look at what we have now, who should we be looking to to lead us into the future?  Do we seek the BOD we want, or the BOD we need. I like diversity at the board level and specific experience at the executive level (just my preference, as I've seen it work well).  Matt will do well by us as a SH representative.  GC, regardless of what you think of him, brings historical context, a wealth of industry experience and relationships across Australia.  We need strong financial acumen, general business acumen, marketing acumen and strong commercial acumen to round this out in my opinion.

Parking the past for the moment, where do people see us going from here.  What are the next steps (beyond appointing a CEO)?



All IMHO, FWIW, DYOR, MSDB, blah blah blah....