you are correct - one entity did put out they were

you are correct - one entity did put out they were entwined with the company and its success along those lines. this is the bigger issue and what I was getting at though - the ambiguity and sidesteps.

"The following was just released by Muse. Note the bolded sentence in the body. Didn't @TPACmuse say, when they were first hired, that they received some $TPAC shares for their services? IR must not be the same as Muse but, imo, the separation between the two sure is fuzzy. "

i know several of the board members have questions the relationship and how it is put together. none of it that i read was accusatory. however, as shareholders,we certainly have a right to understand how the money is being spent and who is the mouthpiece for the company. once again, the tweet does NOT address the entity itself.


"As provided in previous communications, IR is an independent liaison dedicated to providing news for TPAC investors during reconstruction efforts. It is not a part of the business, financial or base management units. It does not receive funds or shares as payment from TPAC or Bill McKay. "

who are they? what firm do they work for/with? i do not own stock in any companies that use a PR firm that does not name the firm. what is the duration of the contract? one year? 6 months? how are they being compensated? they are not doing this for shits n giggles or for philanthropic reasons. if they are not being compensated through the company - why are they doing this...?! either it is a straightforward payment/contract or they are vested in the success through shares/options. why the constant ambiguity...? why is this such a difficult question to answer? what purpose does that serve? so that the iHub bashers dont call and harangue them? right now - it provides less credibility going forward than not having them at all.


"The first misconception is that the IR is here to support TPAC in acquiring new investors and creating business strategies. IR is not and does not. IR is a validation and reporting tool for the shareholder solely. Again, the individual is incorrect. "
there is no point in paying for an IR firm that is NOT there to attract and retain investors. if they or the company do not understand the basic tenet of IR responsibilities and functions - we have bigger issues. Now - while that may be the stated role - the overall intent is to inform exsiting shareholders to keep them invested and have the success/information radiate from there. period. if not - there is no point in spending the money. put a low level admin person on staff.

"A third misconception is that IR is responsible for Press Releases. IR is not. PR comes directly from the business units with CEO Bill McKay’s approval or directly from him. IR doesn’t write or post. We intake questions and provide factual answers. Again, the poster is incorrect. "

come on. seriously...? who is defining what roles? it doesnt matter if they are coming from Bill or IR. it needs to be seamless. it should come across as one entity and not petty turf battles or defensive snipes. these are legitimate concerns and questions by LARGE AND VESTED SHAREHOLDERS. not message board hacks. there have been several contradictions concerning when PRs would be released. specifically the $250K threshold for new business. how does the $135MM SLA not fall under new business? they announced it as being absolute. is this not the case? again - more unneeded ambiguity and side stepping.

why not address the CC question? i invested in large part due to that CC and corresponding business plan. i continued to invest due to meeting milestonesalong the way in that plan. right now - we have a known MM diluter (VNDM) that has been on the ASK constantly driving the price down with a seemingly limitless supply of shares. IR/Bill have said there are no insiders selling. are these conversion notes? i dont see how this is retail. it could be MMs taking advantage of the communication void with current IR and shaking weak hands and traders out of positions but that would be a dangerous position to be taking. intra day short interest has been high but not overwhelming. where are these shares coming from? has the OS changed dramatically again?

for those questioning these questions or the defensiveness of IR- they work for us, the shareholders, not the other way around. shareholders SHOULD be attentive and direct with any company. specifically in this realm where 95% plus of the stocks are scams/shells. when an IR firm/person/position can not answer where they work (firm) or how they are being compensated (contract? shares? etc) it puts up red flags. when they seemingly contradict themselves and then get defensive when asked for clarification - it puts up red flags.

this is not a big board, blue chip stock where IR/mgmt gets the benefit of the doubt or built in trust. it has to be earned every day and long term shareholders need to be defended vs the typical OTC manipulation. i had few issues with Bill making mistakes. he owned up to them immediately on the CC and past tweets and has struck me as being grounded and with conviction. i do not see this IR firm/entity as an extension of him and his style which is a disconnect.

for those that default to the "sell and move on" rebuttal - you dont want that. for everyone of me that is willing to put this out there for debate and discussion - there are 5-10 that WILL just sell and move on creating real capitulation. i am not a trader but i am also not naive and unrealistic. the company doesnt have the stated cash position that buys them a lot of time, inventory, or raw materials. this means either a fast ramp up with unique agreements (like the SLAs) or they go back to the toxic debt markets which eviscerates long term holders. time is not on our side and trust is extremely perishable in this realm. trust is built by putting out a plan/strategy,meeting targets and timelines, addressing shortfalls and corrections needed, and not BSing investors. Bill did that. i do not see this in current IR capacity.