I don’t have any real facts to support that, oth

I don’t have any real facts to support that, other than the fact that QTMM has not kept up its filings. It’s just a possible explanation. I don’t know if I would go so far as to say it’s driven by a desire to give shareholders a gift of sorts, though I wouldn’t rule it out, either (I’ve added to my holdings when share prices have gone into single digits). I would say that no real harm is done to long-term shareholders would be part of the strategy. I’m a good example. I own two penny stocks. One is up a couple hundred percent. I’m not selling because I didn’t buy it to make a couple hundred percent. I bought it to make a couple thousand. So, intermediate price movements don’t mean that much to me. People like me aren’t harmed by the lack of filings (as long as there’s no intention to deceive) because we’re there for the big unveiling of the shiny product that will make the stock price shoot up. We don’t care if the stock price lingers at two cents for a year or so. We weren’t going to sell at ten times that price (absent news that causes us to lose confidence).

So, I think about who is prevented from investing because of the lack of filing and how QTMM might benefit from a moat that keeps them acquiring shares. I can imagine the company being put under pressure by an investor that buys up enough shares and wants short-term monetization to happen at the expense of long-term growth and stability. For instance, Pasaca is probably glad there’s no such investor around right now. Papering and executing a deal can be so much efficient without an investor with the resources and wherewithal to insinuate themselves into the process. Since it probably benefits me, I haven’t been worried about it. But it has gotten my curiosity up.