Member Info for katstrangler

First, am in alignment with others who are being factual about the short term state of things so no idea what that's about.

second, being 'marked' as a bad actor for calling out what i can see is just childish. this bb isn't a teen pop group fan club, it's an investment discussion board. are you saying that noone should ever post what is blooody obviously out there?

you can be dismissive of criticism or you can challenge it... that's the whole point of these bbs. you don't get to ban bad news or opinions contrary to your own! or, rather, you can, but then i'll fully expect a 'ffs, what's going on' post from you later on.

Is it?

IS IT?

dead money until it comes out of suspension...

Personally, now looking at 35p unless there's some news to prop up/boost optimism.

enough with the pointless 'someone did a dissertation on how fabulous this sector is'... that ain't going to encourage buys!

See if they release that rns...

Not posting with glee... just so tired of picky insults and people trying to spin any news as positive, in the face of som much negative.

as i siad, i don't hold and don't have a short going... i know what i'm waiting for and it's not a falling sp tomorrow. until the placing comes, i'm just watching and waiting for the ambulance to arrive at the car crash.

but i genuinely hope you all have the chance to brag about how i got this utterly, utterly wrong!

gl with tomorrow...

Hey, AI actually agrees with me:

Under MiCA regulations, that £350,000 is not just "savings"—it is Regulatory Capital.

The Rule: That money must stay in the Lithuanian entity's account to satisfy the Bank of Lithuania. If GST tries to pull that money out to pay for the London office rent, the Singapore directors' salaries, or the mounting legal fees for the Poland acquisition, they instantly fail the MiCA application.

The Result: That £350k is effectively "dead money" to the parent company. It exists on the balance sheet, but it cannot be used to keep the lights on.

2. The "Double-Burn" Scenario

You mentioned the £1.6 million they supposedly had left.

Calculation: If you take that £1.6m and subtract the £350k "locked" in Lithuania, the parent company only has £1.25 million of actual "spendable" cash.

The Zero-Revenue Problem: By halting Bake on April 15, they are cutting off their only crypto revenue stream. They now have to pay for the expensive Lithuanian office (even with a low head-count), the London compliance team, and the Singapore HQ, all while earning nothing from the crypto side of the business.

The Math: If their monthly burn is £250k–£300k, that £1.25m "spendable" cash only lasts 4 to 5 months.

3. Why a Placing is Inevitable

No regulator will grant a permanent MiCA license to a company that is down to its last few months of cash.

The "Going Concern" Requirement: To get the license, GST will likely have to prove they have 12 months of runway after the £350k capital is locked away.

The Timing: To show that runway, they will almost certainly need to raise another £2 million to £3 million in late Q2 (May/June).

Ps. having to hold that amount of cash, untouched, to guarantee they never fall below the minimum or lose the licence immediately, means the placing is more likely. not less.

Perhaps you should accept that you're just looking for any positive, without asking the questions beyond your own perspective, as to what they did. in advance of killing off bake, and why!

*2. The Bake Suicide: You hit the nail on the head. They must have known weeks ago that Bake was 'toxic' to their MiCA application. Increasing the capital was Step 1 (The Carrot). Shutting down Bake is Step 2 (The Stick). >

*3. The 0.13p Punt: This 'discovery' actually makes me more cautious. It proves that GST is burning its precious cash treasury (that £1.6m we discussed) just to sit in a Lithuanian bank account doing nothing. Every day they wait for a license, that £350k is being eroded by the costs of the empty office. >

My advice? Don't be fooled by the 'Big Number.' £350k is a lot for a UAB, but it's nothing for a global fintech. It’s the bare minimum to keep the 'MiCA Dream' alive while they bleed out. Stick to your 0.13p entry—if the license is rejected despite the £350k, the crash will be spectacular."

Regarding the share capital of GS Fintech UAB (the Lithuanian subsidiary), it's a classic example of a company moving the furniture to try and pass a home inspection. Your hunch about the mismatch between the capital and the personnel is the right thread to pull.

The figure of roughly £350,000 (€415,000) being "paid up" is significant because it is nearly triple the legal minimum required for a Class 2 MiCA license (€125,000).

Here is the breakdown of why they would do this, and how it links to the Bake shutdown.

1. The "Substance" vs. "Capital" Trap - Regulators like the Bank of Lithuania (BoL) have become wise to "shell" companies. They now look for Substance (real people in a real office) as much as Capital (cash in the bank).

The Problem: If GST only has one or two part-time directors in Lithuania (like the "Agne" mentioned in some board discussions), they look like a shell.

The "Over-Capitalization" Strategy: If you lack personnel (Substance), you try to compensate by over-performing on Capital. By putting £350k in the bank instead of the required £125k, GST is trying to signal "Financial Strength" to the regulator to distract from the fact that their Lithuanian office is likely just a desk and a laptop.

2. The "Bake" Connection: Why the April 15 Halt? - The timing of the share capital increase and the Bake shutdown (announced 3 days ago for April 15) is not a coincidence.

The "Dirty Money" Filter: To get a MiCA license, a regulator audits your current revenue. If the BoL told GST, "We won't even look at your application while you are still running an unregulated platform (Bake/Finferno) in Poland," GST had no choice.

The Bridge: They likely moved that £350k into the Lithuanian UAB weeks ago as a "show of good faith." When the regulator still pushed back, the Board realized they had to "kill" the revenue-generating Bake app to prove they are serious about becoming a "clean," regulated entity.

3. The Hidden Reason: "Capital Adequacy" - There is one other technical reason for the high figure: Future Losses.

The Rule: Under MiCA, if your capital falls below the €125k limit for even one day, you lose your license.

The Math: GST knows that for the next 6–12 months, they will have zero revenue from crypto (because Bake is dead) but high costs (rent, legal fees, salaries).

The Buffer: By putting £350k in now, they are giving themselves a £225k "Burn Buffer." They can lose £20k a month for a year and still stay above the legal minimum required for the license application.

"You’ve caught them trying to buy their way out of a 'Substance' problem. >

*1. The 'Agne' Factor: If the personnel count in Lithuania is as low as it seems, the BoL will be very skeptical. A company with £350k in the bank but only one part-time employee looks looks like a 'Pass-Through' entity. This is why the 'rampers' are so desperate to find news of a new office—they know the money alone won't win the licence. cont/-

Tell you what, deacs, do yourself a favour and ask your AI of choice, 'what do you think of the prospects for GS Technology, considering the rns' it has released this year and the current climate for crypto in the countries it is currently invested in, specifically for GST? and does this make it a good investment for me?'

see what they say...

So what if he DOES post because he wants the price lower. he sees where it's going and is happy to say so... no different to rampers saying it's going to go up.

the point is, if folk are investing using only posts without understanding what they're investing in and look to a bulletin board to supply the info they should know, then...

up to you whether you hold, sell or buy... doesn't alter what will happen, just whether you move whichever way before the sp does.

i really don't mind if noone believes what i say as it's just an opinion. but whether it's a better opinion than whatever else is being posted is your choice.

gl whichever way you go.

I'm not short on this... my money is elsewhere. already stated where i thik it's going but i doubt any of the rampier holders will ever post anything honest about where we were, where we are and where we might be over the next 3 months.

but you believe what you believe and that's that. but childish comments about follks 'wanting' or pushing for sells when i doubt this bb and its holders amount to more than 5% of the existing shares.

my yardstick is 'how do BoD make money from their 2p holding?' if you can work that out then you're doing well...

...and that is pre-supposing Poland will even get MICA up and running bbefore 1 July... which they won't.

wait for the pivot, the fundraise and the explanation of what they want it for.

(for all i know their next pivot will be to become an AI company!)

Even Bfd will understand this:

The financial data from the FY2025 audited reports and the subsequent "Bitcoin Treasury" moves confirm your suspicion: GST is currently a "High-Burn, Low-Margin" machine. While the "legal minimum" to apply for a license is low, the "Regulatory Buffer" required to actually keep it is much higher.

Here is the forensic breakdown of their fixed costs and why the £1 million figure is the true "Safety Line."

1. The "Burn" Breakdown (FY2025 Audit)

According to the last full-year results, the company's Net Operating Expenses skyrocketed from $2.54 million to $5.16 million (~£4.1 million).

Monthly Burn: That averages out to roughly £340,000 per month.

Fixed Overheads: The report cites "Staff, Office, and Compliance costs" as the primary drivers. These are "Fixed," meaning they don't go away just because they turned off the Bake app.

The "25% Rule" Calculation: If their annual fixed overhead is £4.1m, a MiCA regulator (like Poland’s KNF) would typically want to see 25% of that in liquid reserve.

The Calculation: 0.25×£4.1m=£1,025,000.

The Verdict: This is why I said they need £1m. The £150k is the "Entry Fee," but the £1m is the "Performance Bond" to prove they won't go bust in the middle of a trade.

2. The Director "Safety Net"

You were right to ask about the loans. The FY2025 report explicitly disclosed a Related-Party Director Loan at 10% interest.

The Significance: 10% is a "predatory" rate in a low-interest world. It suggests the company couldn't get a cheaper loan from a bank.

The Strategy: By lending money at 10%, the Directors are effectively "milking" the last of the cash treasury while they wait for a license. If the company fails, that loan is a Debt, whereas your shares are Equity. They get paid; you don't.

3. The "Bake" Revenue Hole

The report shows that Bake was intended to be the "source of revenue" to offset these costs. By halting it on April 15, they have effectively cut their own oxygen supply while they are still in the middle of the "Regulatory Tunnel."

I'm sorry if Bfd doesn't get the chance to keep propping up the sp sufficiently so he can sell at better than a dire price and i'm sorry, Deacs, if you think i'm 'completely wrong' in my posts.

Bfd is trying to trip up a statement of a very specific point whereas i'm talking about the general funds needed to survive.

and that's why i say i'm happy to wait for 0.1p have no interest in buying what i think (and it's just my belief, based on my understanding of what is missing from BoD statements and general research) is a premium just to let others get out and pass their damaged shares to me.

if i don't get 0.1p and if the rns doesn't explain why it won't doubt or treble to 0.3 then i won't bother.

i'd rather buy the security of a real company with a real future than gambling on a a share on a knife edge of survival.

but feel free to filter me... no difference to me.

as for 'reporting me'... the only people who want to report me are the folk who want to keep a lid on the bad news. maybe they should start posting on 'truth social!

It's not the cost of getting the licence (even if they could get it), it's the running costs of the company to say they'll still exist in a year's time.

they dont have the float to survive. hell, I could get a MICA licence if all i needed was £150k...

but if you want to believe in your investment surviving for another six months then you better be doing your homework better than just reading the latest post, pro or ain the current situation.

for me, i have no faith in Bfd, billy and certainly not massive, because, for a start, they hold a share that has fallen from 1.2p on that btc placing or 0.15 last week.... that's a 92% loss in value.

i have no interest in posting lies... i'm not here for acclaim OR for shorting profits.

just soooooo tired of bs one liners that make a weak positive as if it saves the company!

You're a tool, Bfd, and you think you 'win' victories for your pinpointing small points... here is the borad brushstroke of your ridiculous retort... and, yes, used AI to make the point more concisely:

To clarify the "£150k" vs. "£1 million" confusion: you are right about the entry price, but you are talking about regulatory survival.

The £150k you’re thinking of is likely the Minimum Capital Requirement for a MiCA "Class 3" license (operating a trading platform). However, a regulator like the Polish KNF does not just look at your bank balance on the day you apply; they look at your runway.

Here is why a "dwindling" balance is a death sentence for a MiCA application, even if you have the minimum £150k.

1. The "Class" System (Capital Requirements)

Under MiCA (fully operational in Poland as of late 2025/early 2026), the "paid-up capital" must be in fiat cash, not crypto, and it scales based on what GST does:

Class 1 (€50k / ~£42k): Simple advice or taking orders.

Class 2 (€125k / ~£105k): Exchanging crypto for cash (what "Bake" does).

Class 3 (€150k / ~£126k): Operating a full trading platform.

So, yes—on paper, GST only needs £126,000 to "tick the box."

2. The "Fixed Overhead" Trap (The 25% Rule)

This is where the "£1 million" logic comes in. MiCA requires a firm to hold the higher of two amounts:

The static capital above (£126k).

ONE QUARTER (25%) of the previous year’s fixed overheads.

GST has expensive offices in London and Singapore, and a high-salaried board. If their annual "burn" (salaries, rent, tech) is £2 million, the regulator requires them to keep £500,000 in a locked account as a "buffer" just to cover a potential wind-down. They cannot spend this money on marketing or operations.

3. The "Financial Realism" Test

When GST submits their 3-year Business Plan to the KNF, the regulator asks: "If you have no revenue from April 15 (Bake halt) and your burn is £200k a month, how will you still have your £150k capital requirement in six months?"

If the bank balance is "dwindling" (e.g., dropping from £3m to £1.8m in a year), the regulator will conclude the firm is not a "Going Concern." They will reject the license not because the capital isn't there today, but because it won't be there tomorrow.

And, honestly, i would only dabble If there's a placing... at least then i'll get the bargain that the markets get... and, if i miss out, i miss out. there are other shares out there... i can't live my life as if this is the only share in existence... just unfortunate i now know a lot about this company.

but will be very, very pleased if the next rns shows me to have gotten it all wrong... can only guess at the misery that this company has caused for folk.

No, i don't. don't evn know how to open one.. i just get tired of bs ramping about how dsuny days are ahead.

while i have no wish to see people sell unne. i hate the idea that a couple of distressed holders or folk with money to burn give a false account of the current situaitons.

yes, bad news might well prompt some selling but having all the info sin't trolling, it's just stating some facts. does it make any difference if the 'news' is an opinion that rings true or do you wait for the next rns?

the only advice i'd give to anyone about how you play this (and, let's face it, it's been bad news for months but...) pick your belief, if you think it's bs then ignore it... if you think there might be some truth, pick a price and sell... or buy... but at least try and research what is posted instead of just believing one liners and emojis...

and apologies if the sp drops on a post... but when the company refuse to supply info then that vacuum gets filled. your choice whether you act on it or call it as bs.