"If + If, then" (no financing for now) likely isn't what we thought Q3 2022 would look like.

Why do we have such a burden of proof liability compared to Rockley, or others for that matter?  2.5% institutional ownership compared to their 15%, and we certainly don't have Blackrock or Vanguard as our anchors actually increasing their positions.

Its not our tech, and its not lack of sales (ie. Rockley example) so it must be lack of IR talent, poor communication to funds etc. right?  What else could it be and what can we do about it?  Why isn't the company addressing this?  FJ asked "where will investments go as they depart Rockley" but Nasdaq reporting clearly shows funds are adding/increasing positions in Rockley while selling out/decreasing positions in Poet.

Again, I cringe any time we stack ourselves up against Rockley because I don't think they have an investable platform and don't want to be associated with them in any way.  But I also believe Vanguard and Blackrock are smarter investors with more resources than us - therein rests my discontent.  FJ, after all Poet has factually achieved why are we still "imagining" what the company could do with the kind of money Rockley has received?  Rockley, a company with apparently no future we're advised to scoff at for their inferiority!  Doesn't make sense, and imagination/hubris is not the answer.  Not even talking about share price, I'm talking about our declining/exiting institutional support. 

If you're going to imagine anything at all, then imagine if our IR talent matched our technology talent - whoa...now that's a fun mental exercise isn't it.

Every single time Rockley is brought up, the worse it makes us look.  Please stop.  Btw they also have more analyst coverage and a higher target price.  TM please change strategies or appoint someone else, you are killing our golden goose.