I think the disconnect is the assumption we had something to look at being paired with the uplisting.  And by that I mean something concrete, quantifiable by some measure, and time sensitive – ie. not merely OFC presentations (crucial as it was).  The prior response from forum seniors was the uplist was required due to pressure from institutional investment.  Now we’re on the Nasdaq without corresponding announcement(s) or said investment yet materializing, which begs the question around both the expediency to uplist in the first place, and the claim of institutional investment eagerness?  Keep in mind we haven’t been on the Nas for a single week yet!

The only way this makes any sense at all (to me) is there must be a tremendous amount happening beyond our retail viewpoint to be announced imminently, and I mean really imminently.  The alternative is that our existing contracts are weak, the claim of institutional eagerness was a baseless fabrication, the only point of uplisting ASAP was to uplist ASAP for no purpose other than “trying something new in desparation”, and the company is using language like “encouraging conversations” and “potential customers” to evade saying they actually have nothing meaningful or binding. Sorry, but that seems so utterly ridiculous and I feel dirty just typing it.

For those with the benefit of context, history and understanding of current Poet management – would you not agree there must be something very concrete about to be unveiled?  The “alternative” people seem worried about is so wildly and increasingly divergent from the picture being brought into clearer focus over the past several years.