Member Info for GlassRock

You’re arguing against positions I haven’t taken.

At no point did I say management have been “unfortunate”, nor did I say QDE is guaranteed to return “stronger than ever”. What I said was that there is a difference between criticism based on evidence and declaring the final outcome before the facts are known.

You seem to view every development through the lens of your dislike of PK, which is your prerogative, but it also appears to colour every conclusion you draw.

Regarding the latest Companies House filing, you’ve again taken a piece of information and immediately jumped to the most negative interpretation possible. “Subscribers may rescind”, “the money may be in escrow”, “the business has been permanently damaged”, “they will have to throw in the towel”. Notice how much of that is speculation rather than fact.

The reality is that none of us currently know exactly how the audit process will conclude, what funding is ultimately available, or what the company’s future structure will look like.

Being sceptical is sensible. Presenting worst-case scenarios as though they are foregone conclusions is not analysis, it’s prediction.

I’ve never claimed QDE will definitely succeed. You, however, seem convinced it will definitely fail. Both positions are opinions until the facts arrive.

There’s really no need for the derogatory comments. Most of us here understand the risks and can read the situation for ourselves – we all have heads on our shoulders.

It feels a bit like kicking people when they’re already down, and it doesn’t add anything useful to the discussion. If you don’t have anything constructive to say about the actual question being asked, maybe just don’t reply.

We’re all frustrated, but constant negativity and talking down to other holders isn’t helping anyone.

With respect, I fully understand why some holders are angry and suspicious given the chart and what has happened over the past couple of years. Anyone who bought high and watched the collapse would naturally question everything.

But I also think there is a tendency on these boards to jump straight from “this has been badly run” to “therefore it must all have been a deliberate scam”. Those are not necessarily the same thing.

People do not usually take on debt, acquire land, pursue energy projects and spend years trying to develop infrastructure simply for the purpose of scamming retail investors. Ambition, overreach, poor financing decisions, dilution and operational mistakes are very common on AIM — especially in speculative sectors.

I work in building and development myself, and I know first hand that projects rarely run in straight lines. They take longer, cost more and often hit serious setbacks before anything meaningful is produced.

That does not mean QDE will succeed. It may still fail. The suspension and auditor situation are clearly serious issues. But I personally think there is still a reasonable possibility they sort the audit issues out, stabilise things and continue trading in some form.

As for Riverfort and the warrants, lenders protecting their position in distressed AIM companies is hardly unusual. If they genuinely believed there were no assets or prospects whatsoever, there would be little point pursuing recoveries so aggressively in the first place.

My investment is relatively modest at around £2k, so I am under no illusions about the risk here. I just prefer to keep an open mind and watch how events unfold rather than declare the outcome as already predetermined

Debating timelines and warrant conversions is fair discussion. Declaring criminal fraud as an established fact before any formal findings is something else entirely.

There is a difference between suspicion and proof.

Most suspended AIM stocks have unusual financing structures and messy timelines — that alone is not evidence of criminal conduct. Until official conclusions are reached, all people have are theories and opinions, including yours.

You are presenting opinion and speculation as established fact.

Allegations of fraud are for regulators, auditors and authorities to determine — not anonymous posters on a bulletin board. At this stage the shares are suspended pending clarification and accounts, which is very different from proven criminal wrongdoing.

You also keep moving the discussion away from actual verified QDE facts and into political comparisons and personal insults, which adds nothing useful for shareholders trying to assess the situation objectively.

Everyone understands the risks here. Suspension itself already tells the market there are serious issues to resolve. But claiming shareholders are guaranteed “zilch” or asserting fraud as fact without official findings is speculation, not evidence.

The SNP situation is completely unrelated to QDE. Johnston Carmichael resigning from the SNP audit due to political scrutiny and governance concerns around a political party has nothing to do with the operational or financial position of QDE.

Auditors resign from companies, organisations and political bodies for many different reasons. Using an SNP political investigation as some kind of comparison to QDE is misleading and adds nothing factual about the company itself.

Also, the SNP still exists and continues to function despite all the headlines, which rather undermines the point being attempted.

If there is evidence relating directly to QDE, then post it. Otherwise this is just irrelevant scaremongering and distraction.

I was also Trawling AI and look what it came up with.

People really need to be careful about how they use “AI research” in posts like this.

AI doesn’t “know” anything about QDE beyond what it’s been trained on or what people feed into it. If it’s given a long list of worst‑case assumptions and negative bulletin‑board posts, it will just build on those and make them sound more polished and confident than they really are. That doesn’t turn speculation into fact.

In this case:

The post is full of assumptions about auditors, lenders, defaults and assets being seized, but none of that has been confirmed by the company.

AI will happily run with “could”, “might” and “in theory” regulatory issues and present them as if they are likely, especially if you tell it the company is in “extremely deep trouble” to begin with.

Repeating the same worst‑case scenarios over and over again doesn’t make them any more accurate – it just means they get scraped and echoed back by tools that don’t know the difference between opinion and reality.

If people want to understand the situation, they should:

Read the actual RNS/RNS-equivalent and company statements.

Wait for official updates on auditors, funding and trading status.

Treat anonymous posts (and AI summaries of anonymous posts) as opinion, not fact – especially when there’s no hard evidence behind dramatic claims like “bust within a month”.

By all means have a view, positive or negative, but please don’t dress up speculative worst‑case scenarios as “what AI says”. AI is only as good as the information and bias you feed it.

It's Ms not Mr but I guess it shows how good are your instincts. As I said before its not a rocket science if people like you believe their opinion is valid and final.

Ironicmanthe1st - everyone knew the warrants were at 4p, not a rocket science that it may get to that. MAST look like took a chance and it backfired but its not the end of the world.

Invester86 - they mention a lot about the future and I believe they have a very good vision and the projects in hand to achieve their goals. I wish them all the best and I think they will be successful.

PuzzledPete - Mate you really sound like an old jilted girlfriend, I wonder what happen to you to be so low and miserable, wish you all the best and get well soon.

maidit308 - Absolutely agree with your summation of capital coming in, i guess we will be corrected once the next RNS comes out however we might be very right in our calculations. Not sure why everyone keep saying the consultancy fee of £2M are treated as a loss, as someone running a business I can see how I should have INVESTED in such fee for my business and I would have been at the point I am now few years ago less the countless sleepless nights and overtimes worked.

Good luck to everyone holing shares here.

4PetesSake

I have no horse in this rase just a bare minimum as I am learning and would like to understand how things work before I invest properly/more somewhere.

I may not understand the market and the ins and outs of it however I run a business and have done so for over 15 years so I know a thing or 2 about that.

I take issue with your comment below and I would like to be corrected if I am wrong.

"Now, as expected, the SP was fallen below the critical 4p level, it’s remarkable that some of the Ramping gang think that this is a good thing. They are totally oblivious to the fact that the holders of some 115,000,000 warrants will no longer be paying 4p per share to convert the or warrant into shares. This may mean no further dilution but that MAST will no longer receive £4.6m in funds from the conversion of warrants. The funds were critical to MAST’s plan and without them they will be up the creek without a paddle."

Latest RNS confirms that

Prepaid Warrants exercised ≈ 125,000,000 − 758,836 ≈ 124,241,000

Prepaid Warrants still unexercised: 758,8363

Cash inflow from exercising Prepaid Warrants is zero to the company at exercise, because the £5m was paid upfront when the Prepaid Warrants were issued, the exercise simply converts warrants into shares.

This will mean that MAST already received the £5m.

My Question is: Why is that "paddle" missing?

£10m sounds good to me.

Thank you.

“…50% of the Cash Warrants originally issued to the extent not previously exercised expire on 11 January 2026, resulting in 122,200,000 Cash Warrants remaining unexercised. Such remaining unexercised Cash Warrants expire on 11 July 2026 if not exercised.”

Unexercised Cash Warrants remaining: 122,200,000

Given the original package was up to ~250m Cash Warrants

Cash Warrants already exercised ≈ 250,000,000 − 122,200,000 ≈ 127,800,000

Which will mean that MAST have gained additional £5m from those cash warrants.