1) Not necessarily. Non-regulatory otcmarkets.com,

1) Not necessarily. Non-regulatory otcmarkets.com,which has been setting its own rules as if it were regulatory since being greenlighted ca 2009, often takes the position that a PR is a promotion and otc often does not allow promotions if a company is not otc current classification.

But an email update to those who sign up for such is not a promotion,because it does not reach the general public. That's one of the reasons why many otc non current companies disseminate info via the mail sign up to those who have already chosen to follow a co irrespective of any promotion.

website updates are likely considered to be a middle ground between email updates and PR'S. PR's cost money too.

2) My best friend did a website overhaul for a co that i used to be president of and it took somewhere from 9-18 months.Why? Do you know anything about getting anything done by committee??? A board of 15 is a large committee and the board had change up orders throughout. So those who do new websites for these co's have a give and take w the boards until the board is satisfied.

3) Also -to the poster who says we dont have proof of any sales, past financials show sales,the co has said since then that sales are increasing,and recent email updates showed a sale of 30000 plates in one day and an order of over 100,000 more plates (was it 150k plates? -cant remember) and last financials posted showed a revenue increase of over 4 times yoy

4) also there are financial reasons for not posting financials on otc
otc is a public FOR PROFIT co which receives ca 50% of its revenue last i looked from co postings on otcmarkets .com

a CEO told me many years ago that otc was charging them 3000/year just to post limited financials on otc

also last i knew otc charged $4200/yr to post as a current otc classification. And somebody told me the company read ca 40-44 pages of regulations they would have to comply with to do so. For a lot of companies who dont have specialized on board legal counsel (most startups dont) thats expensive regulatory overkill which would cost them 1000's in legal and accounting fees in addition to the $4200.

Regulations absolutely stifle many industries-mit has posted re such in the medical industry. A co competing to sell just a handgun to the military had to hire a major defense contractor just to handle the regulations for them.


And otc, green lighted in 2009 to destroy low pennies,as were mm's, brokers, dtcc,sec,fbi etc, in 2015 started requiring a 10k surcharge of co's to post on otcqb,as well as a min 1c bid test.

For startups trying to achieve net income,and any co trying to achieve net income can be considered a startup generically, these are often considered by the companies to be excessive fees. OTC should have a scaled charge based on a co's net income imo- that would promote transparency and allow more co's to post on otc.

And that is partly why so many co's are non-current otc and why many co's dropped from otcqb to pinks!!!