That´s a fair question, ABC.

I (all of us) invested in Poet before they had anything concrete in their hands. No finished product, no customer and so on. And no broad institutional support. The reason for me was exactly to be faster than most others and to reap all the fruits from the beginning. It appears that I was much faster than needed, by the way. Now that I am fully invested, of course all the others should follow and Poet should bear giant fruits. This part did not work well so far. Why don´t they see what I see?

Or do they see more than me? You wonder if there is any severe problem we do not recognise. And because they are the professionals they are supposed to be better in judgement than us. At least regarding the market and maybe the technology, too. I share your uneasiness. If numerous Insties would run for Poet I would feel much better...

But my most probable take is that it´s just risk assessment by decision tree. These investors do have certain rules that allow or forbid to invest. Everyone of them sets up his own rulebook. Maybe it´s the missing running production, no known customers, no proper revenue guidance or whatever that is a show stopper.

Poet is still pre production and there are a lot of important checkmarks to make. I see them coming down the road, but they see them not being checkmarked as per today. That´s why I think only the fewest Institutionals are allowed to invest small amounts. I hope for the rest to be observing and waiting to be allowed to step in. Poet can only attract retailers without rigorous rules and extreme risk takers. 

Or maybe it´s just my old glasses that lower my vision and they do see more than me...