Member Info for Daveavt

They haven't doubled their holding, they have bought nigh on exactly the same amount of shares as was placed. Unfortunately for them, it's cost them a lot more. Though technically they could sell them all on Monday.

It's not like you can do 'another placing' as you'd be diluting shares further. The first ones have to be purchased. What hedge fund goes and buys that many shares on the open market at current top price? It's because legally they had to.

The placing stock is already out there, it had already been released, but not allocated to them as they didn't pay for it. So now they are legally bound to purchase the same amount of shares.

Which bit did I agree with you, did you not read where it said the exception is funds that only have to declare at 5 percent. I don't know why you are arguing this point anyway, it's irrelevant.

End of the day, it's all moot. It's a self confessed hedge fund company buying nigh on the exact same amount of shares as the failed placing, on the open market, like you or i, at top price, and milestone release the rns after hours to go under the radar. Where as this would be done via a placing and the company would be making a song and dance about it. Oh dear.

Quote...'Currently FCA rules mean that anyone holding 3% or more of the total issued shares in a company must disclose that position within two trading days of crossing that threshold, providing the company is incorporated in the UK, and that will come via a TR1 notification in RNS form. Subsequently for each 1% threshold crossed (up or down – although no further disclosure is required once a holding drops below 3%) a further TR1 notification is required. There are several exceptions to this rule, with one of the most common being that for non-UK incorporated companies the notifiable threshold if 5%, with subsequent notifications required at 10, 15, 20, 30, 50 and 75%, and disclosure of any change must be within four days. Other exceptions include fund managers, and under EU rules they can disclose at 5% and 10%, and then each additional 1% thereafter. Market makers can also hold up to 10% without disclosing their position, as long as they don’t use that holding to interfere in the running of the company or to influence the direction it takes.' Your move doc...

Ah, well if they aren't a fund doc, please point me to the tr1 at the 3 percent mark when they were slowly buying their shares lol. Oh by the way 'Joe Rundle, Head of Trading, at ETX Capital describes a typical day. “Our hedge fund team works with high net worth clients assisting them with their portfolio management. ' oh and if you view their site, they use the term fund every damn where. But obviously not a fund lol....

NO DOC, if you are a fund, you can declare at 5 percent minimum, tearsy showed this bit of information. And roughly the same number? Here is the October failed placing rns....'Update on October Placing. On 20 October 2016, the Company announced that it had placed 92,333,332 shares...'. Now what was purchased on Friday...93,339,559.

I have to thank Tony and teasy for giving me the hints. Tony for suggesting it, but I never actually realised the amount of shares bought were practically identical, and teasy for showing the info that financial funds can buy 5 percent with out having to declare tr1s at 1, 2, 3, 4 percent. I really thought it must have been an existing holder, as I thought, what fund would buy 5 percent at top price and not do a placing. Then the penny dropped. Cheers Tony and teasey. A bit of research goes a long way.

Don't get all bitter. You have a financial company, buying 5 percent, and not doing it via a placing? Buying them on the open market at top price, because they have to, and can't have another placing as the shares have already been 'placed' and awaiting payment, and the fund buys nearly the exact same amount of shares as the failed placing, and the rns is released after hours, not in any underhand way, but because it's not 'new news'.

As per Tony's comments, it does seem most likely that the latest large share buy was the failed placing company. Firstly the placing amount was 93 million shares, almost the exact same amount as what was just purchased on Friday. Secondly any company buying that amount would want to buy them as a placing, but not allowed this time because they duped them the first time. So sorry lads, this is a company buying in that decided against it for some reason the first time, probably because the company wasn't a viable bet. Now they are buying because legally they have to. Nevermind. See, that's what a couple of minutes research does...

Andy, you do realise what I'm posting comes from the company yes? It's them saying they don't have funds to start their operations, not me. Are you disagreeing with your own licensing company? Are you saying you don't agree with them? They release these statements for everyone including investors to read. Not to ignore and only pretend hyperbolic ones and press releases exist.

Have you lot stopped patting each other on the back yet. Your ramping doesn't change any of the facts the company has declared about itself. You seem to be forgetting, anything milestone does relies on black cactus existing, and the reason for the constant drop in their share price is the impending next 10q statement they have to release. This will show if they have generated any revenues, or managed to get any extra funding. From the complete lack of news from them, investors emailing the company and getting no response, and that the last filing indicating they didn't get the second lot of funding from bellridge, as their auditors said, they have a dim view on if they can continue as a going concern. But don't worry...'blockchain!'

Also from black cactus from their official 10Q filing only 3 weeks ago.. 'We cannot guarantee we will be successful in our business operations. Our business is subject to risks inherent in the establishment of a new business enterprise, including the financial risks associated with the limited capital resources currently available to us for the implementation of our business strategies. Our independent auditor has expressed doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern and believes that our ability is dependent on our ability to implement our business plan, raise capital and generate revenues. See Note 2 of our financial statements.'

I'll do it for you if you like, it's no problem what so ever. Also in the rns it says they have a license to use black cactuses platform in relation to them giving black cactus 30 percent of the company? I'll also link you directly to black cactuses official filing which says the deal should have been finalized on the in December once the shareholder approval has been sought. Seeing as no shareholders have been notified yet, no license has yet been granted. It's all there is black and white you know..

If anyone would like to post up the last rns, I'll be happy to show you the links to 'said products'. Using links from milestones previous rns's. I'm not making this stuff up lol

The licensed products don't exist, we've been through this ages ago.

Follow the facts, not the rampers. And follow the money, 74k turnover last year, only 22k this year, what do you think they were expecting next year if they hadn't tried to jump on the blockchain bandwagon..

New holders, at present the company has no experience in writing software, has no apps, and only turned over 22 grand this year. Not that I'd believe you'd invest based on what's written on a forum and you can do your own research. I believe in you.

..the same thing over and over. Msg don't have any trading apps, and have no experience in writing software. Anything you reply to that is irrelevant, it's the same answer. When they do have an app and have learned how to program, then it's a different matter. Then the question is can they make any money out of that app.