I think the point that has been made time and again is that:

ARS problem - a company with limited cash and a stated M&A strategy for growth put essentially ALL of it's money into the ARS vehicle. Obviously, the vehicle wasn't necessarily something to be wary of at the time, HOWEVER, that's a kin to putting all your eggs in one basket, a simple rule we all know is extremely risky and usually foolhardy - Thus I think properly characterized as "mismanagement"

Dividends - again, a fledgling company just beginning to turn a profit, and what does it do? Essentially turns around and gives away the MAJORITY of the profit it had gotten by that time. I understand the reason for the first one and think it served the purpose in a way that benefited ALL of the shareholders and the company. The other 2 I think specifically geared toward benifitting a few, under the guise of benefitting many, and in retrospect, clearly a fact. Thus I think properly characterized as "mismanagement".

Stock Buybacks - I love the idea if it's done in an impactful way. However, with 410M shares outstanding, and PTSC continuing to authorize shares, and essentially inflate the OS by more than it buys back, a poorly executed buyback plan, IMO. Thus, I think properly characterized as "mismanagement".

Salaries and miscellaneous expenses - A BOD that draws relatively outlandish salaries and a revolving management team that is well compensated as well, yet very LITTLE insider ownership, or purchasing even in light of what they sell to the market as extermely undervalued prices, all in the context of an 80% drop in share value?! Not to mention that CJ is a FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE of Swartz Enterprises, Felcyn is a FULL TIME EMPLOYEE of her own firm, Falk is a FULL TIME Doctor, etc. etc., yet they pull in the equivalent of an above average annual salary for a professional in todays world, all for what is explained in the SEC filings as quantifiably less than 30 days worth of work. In the context of share appreciation of 100% or 500% or 1000%, not really objectionable. However, in the context of PTSC's performance over the last 3 years, inexcusable IMO. Also, doubly so when you consider the skillsets of the BOD members are less aligned with our stated mission and business strategy than most similar companies. Thus, very properly characterized as "mismanagement" and likely much worse, IMO.

When you know you're likely going to acquire cash burners in your M&A activities (at least at the start of their life) doing some of these moves above is clearly qualifiable as "mismanagement", IMO.

While you and others are correct to point out the other external factors that have impacted our share price, there are many examples of companies that have thrived in this same time period. And in doing so in an effort to argue the impact of those factors, you seem to want to completely abslove the stewards of the company of the obvious results of their decisions and actions, or to refused to hold them to a standard that as managers and directors it is EXACTLY their charge to navigate these external forces so as to minimize their impact and if possible, even take advantage of those forces to turn them into positives. I think PDSG MAY be an example of something that may work towards that goal that if things come together.

Ultimately though, I think on average, and as a whole body of work, the pps decline is just as much or more a factor of who has managed and directed our company, and their actions and decisions over the last 3+ years, as it is any of these other factors. And if they HAD been replaced with others earlier on, or even now, who were more aligned with our stated plan, and NOT aligned with previous toxic financers, and family interests, the market would respect the company much more and be likely to react more positively and have more confidence when something apparently positive happens.