Hello,

I have a technical background so my favorite approach to investing/trading heavily relies on data driven decisions. Part of my objective is to look for statistical edges in the market. I do this by asking myself questions. If I ask myself the right questions I might be able to draw conclusions and form patterns. My point is, I'm a very difficult person to persuade through qualitative reasoning. 

Part of my research involves me looking and comparing sectors, industries and companies. In looking into these potential investments, I compare financial health through FA but my trading decisions are based on TA.

My previous investments gave me an idea that I want to explore. Consider this post a way for me to air out my thoughts for a better understanding. I must add that I'm airing out my thoughts on the OT forum to avoid attracting biased, emotional, and political opinions. Think quantatative. 

Anyways, I do not have enough experience with prototypes to draw any good conclusions.  I need a better understanding of what Suresh is talking about in terms of "golden prototype". That led me to find:

https://inertiaengineering.com/three-phases-prototyping/

Yes, it's pretty generic and biased towards a service they want to offer. But if I take it for what it is, I now have a better basic idea of how the prototype process works. With that basic understanding, I'm finding it hard not to compare with other industries.

Lets look at COVID as an example (to keep this current). At the start of the pandemic you have these low float stocks such as MRNA and NVAX (compare them with PFE and JNJ). Their objective is to yield positive test results weighted against industry standards (it gets a little more complicated with the industry standard being subjective). Anyways, in order to mass produce their vaccine, they need to complete phase 1-3 trial programs. With the later phases increase in dose amount and number of volunteers. As they record the data for these results, the results are analyzed by third party industry professionals. Conclusions are drawn from internal and external forces. 

The significance I see is they require external validation. That's interesting because I'm trying to compare this with POET's prototyping process. In my mind, when MRNA gets positive test results, that tells the market they will get approval for mass production. How is that any different from what POET is doing right now? In my mind it's equaly as important. 

What happens following the MRNA approval? Look at the stock price move from $20 - 189. Was it smooth and predicatble? Was it mainly in one direction? Wow, thats a lot of movement. Now let me size up the share floats for MRNA, NVAX (low floats) and compare them with PFE and JNJ. Ah, okay now I see the difference in price action based on share float. That's interesting how MRNA spiked up and came right back down. It's interesting how insitutional investors see and understand this. By understanding this they can take profit with both directions. Difference being they have deeper pockets so they call the shots. Why not? Deeper pockets and a low float? Does not take very much to manipulate the thought process of many retail investors (pump). Especially when they come out with conflicting analyst reports that are really biased towards their own agenda (price targets they calculate..) To me this screams out "conflict of interest" and manipulation and the low float side. Sorry I digress.

Note: With the validation MRNA saw with their phase 3 results (if you want a good comparisson for how share float works, compare what happened to PFE stock versus MRNA stock when they came out with their P3 results, maybe a week apart. Both positive results but interesting to study the share pricce reaction). 

Back to the prototypes. I see the positive phase 3 results as proof and risk mitigation by not only the third parties but the world. That's huge! Back to POET. I see their internal/external data points as "proof". What I don't understand is why people are so fixed on the RS, and uplisting. I see those as tools, the more the better. You can apply any emotions to this tool if you want, but I'm naturally inclined to measure. What's more important in my mind is the "proof". That enables insititions to mitigate risk. Mitigating risk alows you to plan ahead. Look at all the rich countries preordering the vaccines. Planning ahead. 

The point is, the whole world was fixed on metric. The data points. What did the insiders do? Take advantage of the share price with predetermined selling options. Irrelevant. What about all of the price targets from the professional analsyt reports? Remember the conflict of interest because they hold positions? Really good way to heard collective mentality but still irrelevant. 

So now I'm thinking to myself, whats the difference? When the data comes out, what does it all mean? What does it enable? How does it improve our relation with the institutional investors? Can I measure that?