So if you put your big boy pants on woundedknees, the real answer to my question from you is "I don't know". Your conjecture and guesswork is nothing more than inflammatory and childish.

Why is it difficult for people to have a conversation on here; especially around the tough decisions in investing? The fact of the matter is these published scholars (Woundedknees -- these are Phds at Universities, that's a graduate degree. Let me know if you need a wiki link) have published empirical evidence around a reverse split and the outcomes of said splits.

10-30% loss on investment wealth, with a 25% reduction in volatility if the share price is over $2 at the time of split. So yes, the swings are less rapid post split but there's a steady erosion in share price as a result of the RS.

Now that's a point that's worth discussing -- at what point does an RS actually make sense to use as a tool? Did we step on our own toes by suggesting it in the first place and squashing any upward momentum we had?

The earlier suggestion of attracting some institutional investing as funds balance across segments and vacuum up percentages of different verticals is a thought I hadn't tossed around before -- but that would be a short term bump as the funds balance PTK in/out. Long term I just don't see the purpose and viability of the RS on it's own merits (without further significant progress in partners, which makes the RS moot in the first place).

Chicken and egg problem that I am still chewing on -- I just can't figure where the RS makes a good strategy decision other than a facade of legitimacy by being on the Nasdaq (again a facade only with all other things being equal, the landscape changes with a partner announcement and revenue).