Member Info for BashM

Annoyed with this holding so reduced - no revenue despite promises. VLRM that is the place to invest, revenue generating, $280m for 49.9% of the company secured and access to $1bn for M&A. Valued at £70m. The market does honestly make me laugh at times. Why this is valued so high without revenues is beyond me

This is a joke of a company. I sold out ages ago and brought into VLRM. What a decision that was. They secured $280m for 49.9% of the company and access to $1bn for M&A. Valued at £70m. Place to go if you want cut your losses and make money!

$280m + Access to £1bn of additional funds + £600k Wageen token + £450k from end of last year revenue update + Sold shares in London Bitcoin + £600k from chairman and CEO + Coin GT phase 1 revenue +++++

Explain how it isn't $280m - lets see your workings.

GG is a known deramper :). Even someone gave the company $1bn in cash he would question it!

PP1 they don't believe the RNS. They are in the wrong business of trading shares if you don't believe what is written in an RNS LOL

Where is the double counting?

Furthermore- Why would the Chairman allow the transaction to proceed if he had no confidence the $200m was at risk! He owned a large percentage of the company!

GG - Clearly you are NOT reading the RNS. So in summary we hold $200m MTN which give us $15.9m in interest payments each year for 5 years. That equates to $79.5m between now and 2030, in interest payments which hits VLRM books as revenue. Once the MTN mature VLRM gets $200m. So there you have $280m for 49.9% of the company. All clear as day in RNS. This is not the only revenue we are generating!

Pp1 ignore the doomsday crew on this forum. They got nothing better to do other than to bash this share. FACT private institute has paid $280m for 49.9% of the company.

@Dom-Bella - Leave the resident idiots to enjoy their little party. We will focus our energy on more positive aspects. Such as them PoC announced yesterday by Mark for a single RWA issuance in collaborating with Injective and Digishares. Both great organisations in their own rights.

Need help reading - Early in the context after such an amazing deal has been concluded. Now buy resident idiots club :)

I'm being stalked - god save me! At least I have a face unlike you hiding in the TG group and acting like a child in this forum. If you had any creditability you would come out on the TG group rather than being an ill informed spy :)

No point explaining anything to a group of resident idiots :)

It’s so funny. We have idiots that hate a share and aren’t invested, posting useless comments here and acting like a pair of school kids asking about what’s being said in a TG group. If you don’t like VLRM go away. You both are like a smelly piece of sticky turd that just won’t go away

Shame the resident idiots are here talking the usual C**P again! Don't worry this will moon and you will be left to eat your words :)

Oh look our chairman holds 87m shares circa 18% of the company, so I doubt he will allow botched deals for the investment and effort he has made to get us to where we are!

@willhi02 - Welcome to another clown. If you look back at the volumes trader since the day the deal was completed you will find a number of days where volumes was north of 1m :)

Decided no point wasting my energy on psychiatric patients :)

@Cimbom - Despite the deal looking unusual on the surface, asset‑for‑equity swaps especially involving non‑cash or strategic assets are actually COMMON in emerging tech and tokenisation sectors, and the lock‑in or selling windows are standard mechanisms to balance risk and eventual liquidity. The presence of shared directors or family links doesn’t automatically imply wrongdoing. Are you aware that in early‑stage companies it’s normal for founders and investors to be connected across multiple ventures? Directors taking options in a related company can simply reflect aligned incentives rather than anything improper. Remember both the Chairman and CEO took notable stakes in VLRM recently and have warrants at 50p/£1 so they see upside to this deal for VLRM. Even if as you say IASL facilitated introductions, that doesn’t mean QGP wasn’t genuinely interested in VLRM’s tokenisation work.