Member Info for guzzler1962

Areyoudoubting,
My DM is open on Telegram if you want to engage.
Or if you want we will debate on the forum.
Have I slated the BOD with regards to the wording of RNSs?
Yes.
Did I raise it with the BOD on an (unofficial) zoom call?
Yes.
Have I questioned the reporting of revenues?
Yes.
Did I raise it with the BOD via Zoom?
Yes. (Epstein agreed)
Did I slate them for the 180 degree U turn on funding?
Yes.
Did I call them out for it on the last zoom call?
Yes.
When the price was tanking from 0.7p did I protect some tranches?
Yes.
Did I rebuy lower?
Yes.
Did I manage to average down from mid 0.5s to mid 0.3s increasing my holding and having dry powder?
Yes.
On zoom did I tell the BOD after the placing they had my full support and I 100% trust them like others did?
Did I f##k.

I won't be happy if they are up solely because of IGS.
But I will be happy if they have increased with minimal IGS contribution.
Meanwhile, if an extension to IGS on similar terms is announced I will be happy with that too.
And perhaps it's these type of contracts which will drive the Mcap with current revenue ticking over as support.

City,
I did ask Epstein as you well know.
As for engaging with him again I doubt very much if I'll bother.
So as things stand, with IGS money possibly not in play (hearsay), revenue results are now binary.
The market either likes them or they don't.
Which is probably the reason why some are now playing them down.

City you are missing the point.
And you know you are.
It's not simply a matter of if revenues are up or not.
We know they will be up because as you keep telling us IGS has previously contributed little.
The question is, and always has been, how are the other revenue streams fairing?
Epstein might have told you (pinch of salt)so let's hope he clarifies to the rest of us via official news.

Hepseal,
I can only make my assumptions from what is in the public domain.
And the official announcement from the Company stated they received money in January for a 6 month contract.
Some may think the debate is irrelevant because we get the cash anyway. But I don't.
Especially since we are waiting for revenue updates.
Epstein confirming the bulk of it coming next month could mean we have to wait for the Q3 report to see a big move.

So just to clear up the telegram thing.
The small "inner sanctum" group of about 12 people started out OK but quickly became very cult like around the time when I criticised the reporting of the launch of the Argentina App.
I privately raised the issue with the owner of the group having seen similar elsewhere.
Note the SP was about 0.55p about 8 months ago.
So I removed myself (good decision) but remain in the "outer sanctum" group where I believe you threw your toys out the pram, stating your DM was open for anyone who required your advice (pmsl).
Now my concern for a long time has been the writing and lack of clarity of the RNSs.
A concern you and others have consistently tried to tell me is irrelevant.
I'm overthinking and not seeing the bigger picture apparently.
So here we are, current SP at 0.285, 12 weeks after a 0.30p Placing waiting for clarification on why it was so important to rush it through.
Again, I will reiterate, I won't be seeking direction from you.

You don't think if there isn't an extension to the IGS contract we won't lose $120K revenue?

As previously stated, I won't be taking direction from you.
Whether you like it or not the RNSs have led to differing interpretations.
And it's my belief that held back the Mcap.
You can dream up as many potential scenarios as you want (we've all done it) but what we need is transparency, especially in the wake of a rushed heavily discounted placing with warrants.
A good start will be an extension to IGS because after this month (or next month) we will miss on average monthly revenue of $120K which at current Mcap we can I'll afford.

Sid,
I pointed it out at the time.
Either revenues are reported a month behind or they are not.
They can't have it both ways.
Self inflicted confusion due to poorly written RNSs.
I got bashed for stating it, but here we are, 6 months later discussing how to interpret news.

City,
Do you know or are you guessing?
The January RNS clearly states that the IGS contract contributed to the monthly revenue, pushing them above $120K.
So now you are saying none of the $720K was received by MOS in January??

Hepseal,
I agree, a small payment made in January.
The fact that a payment was made in January, and it's a 6 month contract, suggests all $720K will be paid up this month.
Now it seems that has changed to end of next month because.....?

As a result, the Company expects its monthly revenue across all services to exceed US$120,000 this month.
Basically without the contract, the revenue wouldn't have gone above $120K in January.
Therefore last payment in June.

City
You need to revisit your timeline.
Especially the RNS mid January where it states as a result of the IGS contract revenues increased that month.
Exceeded $120K I believe.
That statement implies IGS contributed money in January.
Happy for someone to put a different spin on it if it suits the narrative.

Sid,
So what you are saying is even though the IGS money will be fully received this month, the next revenue figures will only include approximately $240K of the full amount?
In the meantime we hope an extension to the contract lands on similar terms because IGS is worth an average of $120K revenue per month and its come to an end.

What does it matter as long as revenues are increasing??
I'm assuming you can show evidence of increased revenue apart from Epsteins word?
But what we do know is revenue will definitely be up from the last update because IGS are about to finish their $720K contribution this month.
As for the other streams nobody knows, certainly not the cult, and that's why they are so vociferous in their protests against my questions.
But at least they are consistent, they were pretty vociferous towards me when the SP was 0.55p :))))

Please provide numbers and evidence of the main income drivers.
I'm sure we would all like to know.
IGS contract doesn't count.

Fan boys getting abusive again.
A near 50% rise needed to get back to 0.4p and they think they understand what's going on.
Big revenue figures neeed now because IGS are pretty much done and everyone knows they could mask lack of growth.
Meanwhile, what is in the public domain is Nacion Pelota and Playacar365 still haven't hit 50K downloads.
Anyone tried working out what exponential growth is since October?

And for the umpteenth time I believe the Mcap is being held back because the revenues are not being broken down.
Epstein even admitted it was a fair point.
As for the $720K from IGS over 6 months, their first instalment went to MOS in January.
I failed maths so someone needs to help me out when they are fully paid up.

For months now I've stated I have a concern on how the revenues will be reported.
Or to be more precise, the actual breakdown of each revenue stream.
Broken record is the jibe.
But I believe its relevant, and I believe the market needs transparency.
It's pointless guessing a monthly figure because we don't know how much IGS contribute.
Which means of course that poor figures elsewhere could be masked.
Whilst possible, it's also worse case scenario and let's hope for the best.
But what we are seeing now is people selling because of uncertainty over revenues.
A situation I wanted the BOD to avoid because it affects the value of my holding.

Gfin news today should help our £250K investment