Member Info for apps

If its this hard to buy a few hundred quids worth now, how much will the price have to rise to flush out sellers to fill buy orders when positive news lands!

Posters have talked about NFX doing an IMM or HEMO and I thought this was a tad over the top but looking at the last months chart and the way the board have raised funds recently, these posters might be right!

Ii will take 11m shares @.03606 (£39,666) without going NT when only 2m on bid with SCAP.

Its going to be a big end to the week 😉

I’ll be taking my allocation.

£1,257 for 628,571 new shares @.2p bargain 😜 nice top up.

I suppose an underwritten Open Offer is less destructive than a standard placing and directors taking up their full allocation gives some reassurance.

Odd of Solgold to share that article. It’s from 13th Oct and gold now at $4340

Fresh from Oracle AI World in Las Vegas, our Co-Founder Andrew McCartney and Chief Partnerships Officer Andrew Webber spent the week alongside Oracle’s global Defence and Public Sector leaders - advancing Whitespace’s mission to deliver sovereign, high-assurance AI where it matters most.

Across the event, we shared how Whitespace is deploying AI into mission-critical environments - from the MoD to wider Government and National Security operations - as part of Oracle’s Global Defence Ecosystem Programme.

Beyond the main stage, the team held a packed schedule of strategic briefings:

⚙️ Meeting with NVidia’s Public Sector team to explore the new DGX Spark (with Whitespace receiving one of only 50 seed devices to test AI performance at the edge and on autonomous platforms).

☁️ Discussions with Google Public Sector around the Global Defence Cloud (GDC) and the emerging Sovereign Secret Cloud in the UK.

🇦🇺 Engagement with Oracle Australia Defence, RED Reply, and NATO partners on joint opportunities.

💬 Closed-door sessions with Oracle’s SVP for Defence and National Security and VP for Sovereign Cloud Regions to shape how Whitespace and Defence Holdings PLC can further accelerate sovereign AI capability for Defence in 2025/26.

A busy and productive week that reflects our shared commitment with Oracle and Defence Holdings PLC to deliver trusted, sovereign AI infrastructure - at speed, at scale, and across the edge.

Watch this space - some of what was discussed in Vegas won’t stay there for long.

Cheers BB, ChatGPT did the heavy lifting but you have to tell it where to go and what to look for.

Summary, good news, most warrants are gone, mostly only directors warrants left. Read on if you want the details.

# ALRT — Warrant Exercises (last ~6 months) & Cash Raised

**Anchor share counts** (from RNS “Admission and Total Voting Rights” lines):

* **28 Jul 2025 (Prospectus/Admission):** 1,946,522,489 shares.

* **9 Sep 2025 exercise (+55,192,308):** total → **2,001,714,797**. (53,692,308 @ **0.325p**; 1,500,000 @ **1.40p**)

* **24 Sep 2025 exercise (+7,151,334):** total → **2,008,866,131**. (5,000,000 @ **0.67p**; 2,151,334 @ **0.60p**)

* **1 Oct 2025 exercise (+69,800,000):** total → **2,078,666,131**. (59,800,000 to one holder; price not stated)

* **20 Oct 2025 Operational Update exercise (+96,399,279):** total → **2,381,792,946** (62,153,126 to one holder; 34,246,153 to another) ([Investegate][5])

**Total exercised in the period:**

55,192,308 + 7,151,334 + 69,800,000 + 96,399,279 = **228,542,921 warrants** exercised (≈ last 6–7 weeks).

**Cash raised (by disclosed or best-fit strikes):**

* 53,692,308 @ **0.325p** → ~**£174k**; 1,500,000 @ **1.40p** → **£21k**.

* 5,000,000 @ **0.67p** → **£33.5k**; 2,151,334 @ **0.60p** → **£12.9k**.

* 69,800,000 ( **assumed** @ **0.325p**; strike not stated in the 1 Oct RNS) → **~£226.9k**.

* 96,399,279 ( **assumed** @ **0.325p** given the sizes/holders pattern in recent RNS/PDMR) → **~£313.8k**.

**Estimated cash total:** **~£782k** (sum of the above).

(Where I’ve had to assume **0.325p** I’ve flagged it; see “Assumptions” below.)

---

# What’s still outstanding?

1) Director/PDMR 0.325p grant pool (from 29 Jul PDMR RNS)

On **28 Jul 2025**, directors/PCAs were **granted** sizeable **0.325p** warrant blocks (details explicitly in the PDMR RNS and cross-referenced to the prospectus). The individual lines add up to **260,904,892 warrants @ 0.325p** (breakdown below).

* Sentry One (PCA) — **153,846,154** @ 0.325p

* James Norwood — **19,465,225** @ 0.325p

* Ian Yarwood-Lovett — **58,395,675** @ 0.325p

* Anthony Stazicker — **19,465,225** @ 0.325p

* Additional line — **9,732,613** @ 0.325p

Totals per PDMR RNS text above.

**Likely exercised out of that 0.325p pool so far** (by size/timing of RNS):

53,692,308 (9 Sep) + **69,800,000** (1 Oct, price not stated but fits this tranche) + **96,399,279** (20 Oct, two large holders) = **219,891,587**.

**Implied remaining (0.325p Director/PCA pool):**

260,904,892 − 219,891,587 ≈ **41,013,305 warrants** still outstanding at **0.325p**. (Estimate; see notes.)

Cont.........

Cont.....

2) Other strike buckets (investor warrants)

We have proof that 0.60p and 0.67p tranches exist (7.15m already exercised on 24 Sep), and a 1.40p tranche (1.5m exercised on 9 Sep). The original sizes of these higher-strike pools are not disclosed in the RNS set; they’re typically set out in the Prospectus appendices

3) Prospectus context (dilution envelopes)

An earlier prospectus line (March 2025 document) shows that if all outstanding Existing Warrants + Tranche 2 Warrants + Existing Options were exercised, there would be ~241,588,378 resultant shares. That included options and pre-July positions, so it’s not a clean “warrants-only” number for today — and the July PDMR grants (260.9m) look larger than that older total anyway. Treat that 241.6m as dated context, not current outstanding.

Bottom line (today)

Known exercised (last ~6 months): 228,542,921 warrants.

Estimated cash raised: ~£782k (assumes the big Oct exercises were at 0.325p).

Minimum warrants still outstanding: ~41.0m at 0.325p from the Director/PCA grant pool alone. That’s a floor, because there are additional higher-strike investor warrants (0.60p / 0.67p / 1.40p) with unknown remaining size.

Assumptions & why they’re reasonable

The 69.8m (1 Oct) and 96.4m (20 Oct) blocks are assumed 0.325p because:

(a) they’re very large single-/dual-holder exercises;

(b) the RNS set immediately prior shows mass exercises at 0.325p; and

(c) the only explicitly evidenced larger pools are the Director/PDMR 0.325p grants. The higher-strike pools we’ve seen so far are much smaller.

ADW, why don’t you post what TW says?

No one who posts on here will post more than a headline or teaser of what TW says because you are all here to promote his site to get more paid subscribers to his articles. In fact most of you are TW accounts trying to direct new subscribers.

If his content was worthy of posting here, you would be.

If what he says will protect us from ourselves, post it, not direct us to a subscription.

No its not Skippy, its not that simple at all. The share price may move up or down on market forces, supply/demand etc but they can also move at the control of the MM's

Its a numbers game, there are algos. Retail are predictable and MM's know how to manipulate them.

It will only rise if the MMs will make money.

If they don't have shares to sell into a rise (either cheap shares already in their account, or the confidence to sell shares they know they can buy back cheaper), the shareprice will not go up.

Why would an MM sell you shares they don't have for 1.2p to have to buy them at 1.4p to balance their account.

If the MM's hoovered up a load of cheap stock over the last 2 days, they will let it run, but they didn't.

They are short after selling you all shares between 1.3 and 1.55 yesterday. Today was a great day to manipulate the price down to balance their accounts and make a few quid.

No!

As I said in my previous post, the MMs would have spiked this over 2.5p if they wanted to create a market to sell into. Please read up on how a placing is forward sold into unsuspecting retail portfolios.

If the MMs had been given the nod on another £4m worth of shares to forward sell, the share price would be 2.5p today.

Doesn’t matter how bullish retail is — if the MMs don’t move their quotes, the price isn’t going anywhere.

And if they want the price to rise or fall, they call the tune.

As unprofessional as you may think it is to post this. Its the way of the world now. Politicians never cease to amaze me with what they feel is appropriate to air publically, but they do.

He is right though. then print a load of small trades at ask price. Trying to create a trend in their favour.

The market maker can create whatever market they like. Retail traders/investors are easily manipulated by changes in bid/ask and even the best of RNS, they can create fear.

For the less experienced, heres an introduction to SEAQ and how the MMs use it to their advantage rather than to just maintain an orderly market.

The SEAQ (quote-driven) system is far more open to manipulation than the order-driven SETS system (used for larger quoted companies), and here’s why:

🔹 1. Market Makers control visibility and flow

On SEAQ, only market makers (MMs) can post quotes.

Retail and most institutional traders can’t place visible limit orders — they can only deal at the MM’s bid or offer.

So MMs can control the visible price range and delay or hide genuine demand or supply.

🔹 2. Limited transparency

There’s no public order book showing real buyer/seller intent — just the quotes the MMs choose to display.

That means:

They can narrow or widen spreads to influence trading behaviour.

They can “paint the tape” by showing or executing small trades to suggest movement or stability.

Genuine large orders can be hidden or delayed, shaping sentiment artificially.

🔹 3. Price discovery distortion

Because price moves depend on MM quotes rather than pure market matching,

A small MM group can control the pace of rises or falls.

They can lean on the bid to suppress upward pressure or mark up the offer to trigger FOMO buying.

It’s easier to create false liquidity — showing quotes that disappear when hit.

🔹 4. SETS is much harder to “game”

By contrast, SETS (order-driven) shows all live limit orders — buyers and sellers compete transparently.

Prices move only when real orders trade.

Institutional players and retail traders can see genuine supply/demand.

Much harder for a few entities to steer sentiment.

I suppose this is the real news everyone is waiting for.

"The first drill hole core samples are at ALS Laboratories in Perth and have been cut, with sample preparation underway. Assaying will begin shortly and results expected in the coming weeks."

Typical turnaround at ALS Labs 3 to 5 weeks from sample submission for final results, depending on queue volume.

Entering 4th week, assay results could land anytime.

At these gold prices, it makes the likelihood of a discovery being commercially viable even greater.

Can’t take him seriously.

Just loves to bash when a companies shareprice is in the early speculative stages.

He has cost many early investors the opportunity of life changing returns.

He has also been right on occasion but if you bash enough companies, you’ll get it right occasionally.

He’s bashed WSBN constantly (even yesterday) and look at the RNS this morning. 😜

With the latest RNS confirming the completion of Hole 2 (25RSDD002) to 950 m, it’s now clear Wishbone are not chasing smoke — they’re sitting on a large, coherent, and expanding hydrothermal system right in the heart of the Paterson Province.

Let’s unpack what’s just happened 👇

✅ Hole 2 — stronger system, deeper reach

• Multiple zones of fracturing and pyrite-rich alteration right through the core — the classic footprint of gold–copper systems.

• “Stronger alteration than Hole 1,” according to the company — meaning we’re getting closer to the heart of the system, not drifting away.

• At nearly a kilometre down, and still in alteration, the scale and persistence of mineralisation indicators are striking.

✅ Hole 1 already set the tone

• 152 m of breccia pipe within 257 m of quartz-carbonate veining and sulphides (chalcopyrite, pyrite) from ~520 m depth — that’s a major continuous zone by any standard.

• Brecciation and sulphides intensified with depth, suggesting a strong feeder source below.

• The fact Hole 2, 200 m away, hits the same signatures confirms this isn’t a one-off — it’s a connected mineralised system.

✅ Hole 3 now adds the scale argument

• Located 1.6 km north of Holes 1 & 2, targeting a previous intercept of 7 m @ 2 g/t Au + 0.38 % Cu (WRSDD0008) — and that was at only ~273 m depth.

• If Hole 3 repeats the same alteration and sulphide story, WSBN will have proven mineralisation across multiple domes over kilometre scale distances.

• In other words — Red Setter stops being “a target” and becomes a district.

✅ Magnetics already show the potential footprint

• Airborne and ground magnetic surveys reveal Havieron-style anomalies across 3.5 km of strike with 1 km width.

• Some of these magnetic bodies are interpreted within 50–75 m of surface — opening the door for shallower, more economic drilling and development.

• Hole 3 sits right on one of these magnetic highs — the next logical test in a classic Paterson-style system.

✅ Commercial implications

• Two deep holes showing consistent structure, breccia, and sulphides isn’t luck — it’s geological validation.

• Add in historic intercepts near surface and the magnetic footprint, and Red Setter has the geometry, depth, and lateral continuity that define scalable discoveries.

• RC drilling now underway will start testing those near-surface targets — the very zones that can make a project commercial.