Scancell founder says the company is ready to commercialise novel medicines to counteract cancer. Watch the video here.
Donk, if you have 31,000,000 shares you can buy about 470,000. At 0.05p that will cost you about £235. If you then sell the equivalent number of shares at 0.08p you will get about £375 and a profit of about £140. If you find this worthwhile, go for it. But buy before you sell because if you sell first the number you can buy will go down.
Personally, the 1:66 ratio makes the whole thing rather pointless IMHO.
Do we really need to make this a quasi-religious thing? We're making financial investment decisions. Syme might prove to be a good one; there's a good chance it will prove to be a bad one. But all of this mindless optimism and pointless doom-mongering are really a waste of time.
Holly, I think the reality is that no one knows. Some people think it will all end in a big fat zero (or as close to zero as makes no difference) while others are apparently convinced that we have a unicorn that will take all investors into the promised land. I suspect that we will end up somewhere between those two extremes. I have enough invested to be able to retire happily if a medium-good future transpires, but it is small enough to not make much difference to me if my shares get wiped out. So I'm just waiting to see how things develop. In the meantime, I drop in here every now and then to laugh or shake my head in disbelief at some of the emotional rantings!
Judging from the SP it's not really particularly good or particularly bad. At this price quite small trades seem to have an impact leading to apparent peaks and troughs that will look meaningless in months or years to come, at which point we will either be enjoying the benefits of a massive increase in value or we will have written off the loss and be moving on to the next opportunity!
Castle, it's your position that people are "ramping" but that seems to me to be an assessment that you have made but which I can't agree or disagree with as I have no evidence either way. A simpler interpretation might be that people are buying and selling and hoping to make a profit.
In general there is too much emotion in these discussions. Some people are ridiculously positive with no hard evidence; others are convinced the wheels are about to fall off, again with no hard evidence. Me? I'm just hoping to make a profit and at the moment I need things to improve by 50%, preferably more!
Admitted dumping? Does that mean he had some responsibility for the spike? Or, instead of 'dumping' did he just sell when it seemed right to him to sell?
Jenkoo mentioned being surprised at the small gap between buys and sells. It's always seemed to me that a buyer needs a seller and vice versa; aren't they all just trades with equal numbers bought and sold?
I don't understand why the company leadership would want to give first movers an advantage. Surely their focus would be to give the company (and themselves) the advantage; so how do they benefit from this?
There are at least half a dozen different quantum computing technologies. We can't know what techniques will work best for any given application; perhaps it'll be one that's only just been thought of and hasn't yet begun to take shape. And then there are numerous supporting elements that will contribute to the future ecology of the metaverse; things like error correction, efficient data processing and analytical algorithms, etc. I imagine that, to make money out of investments in the developing 'multiverse,' diversification might be the best bet. Or maybe just take a flyer on the odd penny share!