Steve has provided several simple, declarative sentences about the status of efforts to register the company. Your decision not to accept his statements at face value derives from a presupposition of your own that a lack of transparency is evidence of nefarious intent. Yet Steve said he is working on, and we should expect very soon, the very item of transparency that would derail your presupposition. Why the rush to condemn at the very moment he states his intent to deliver on the very thing you most want to see and importantly, belie your accusation? In the form of a long and rather technical thesis, no less, worthy of one or more billable hours. It is your own credibility that you are putting on the line, albeit anonymously.

To me it defies credulity that after all we’ve been through, that Steve would commit in simple, declarative sentences to actions we all desperately want to see if he did not plan to follow through. It couldn’t be stated more clearly and has now been reiterated several times: Steve is working diligently on the proxy and S1, and we should expect a shareholder letter soon. We will know soon whether you are on or off the mark. Assuming that you yourself are not harboring nefarious intent, I am reminded on the adage about the pickpocket who upon encountering Jesus could only see pockets. A more simple and more parsimonious explanation for the dysfunction you decry is simple, garden variety failure of governance. I don’t think anyone would disagree that he should have done better. Until we see otherwise in unmistakable terms, there is no reason not to think we are getting back on track.