Member Info for Phimx

Mickydj:

Your mistake is stating that formal guidance is the only requirement. Totally overlooking directors responsibilities to shareholders and the company.

From AI, I'm busy

" Market Misconduct: Under financial regulations (e.g., FSMA in the UK), a director who makes misleading statements, promises, or forecasts in a public interview, designed to influence the share price, can face criminal charges. "

RNS: 5 December 2025

"The process has reached the stage where these three companies will now be needing to make their mining rigs available to QBT's testing team at its laboratory in Milan, with access to their relevant source code. This will allow QBT to install the software version of Method C AI Oracle, the launch of which was announced on 12 November 2025, onto the third-party mining rigs"

Getting close to 3 months and still no rigs delivered, lost in the post?

Why does he refer to the mining rigs as third party?

Mickydj: You post

" If there is an RNS stating “QBT will generate revenue in 2024” as a formal forecast, post it. Then your 'fraud' 'revenue claim' 'unethical' statements can be validated"

You have a very simplified view of what is and isn't fraud

Has Mrhanji jumped overboard ?

Mickeydj: You post

" ... That is forward-looking language.

“Expect.”

“Target.”

A director cannot simply prefix all statements with get-out words. If there is nothing tangible to give meat to the statements then it may be interpreted as fraud. Obviously fraud would have to be proved.

Allforprofit:

Mickydj needs to read up on Fraudulent Misrepresentation with regard to what company directors can say. It can lead to personal liability for a director.

Usersteve:

Interview: 27 June 2024 at 2:24

There is no verification that Gardin and his team appeared at Nashville recently.

I don't believe he or any team attended, show me the goods !

Mickydj: You post

" I repeat, you are forever persisting with a negative narrative"

It is the only verifiable narrative available and built upon a solid foundation of unachieved claims made by Gardin in many RNS. All well discussed and laid bare in these pages.

I note my success at predicting your reticence in disclosing your credentials. The only verifiable credentials here are what one posts. Peers can judge and score for themselves.

Mickydj: You post

" Yet you stand here anonymously claiming technical authority."

I don't claim any expertise in anything. It is you that is pushing this false agenda. It was you that initiated the 'credentials' debate.

If you are so keen on credentials let us see what you have to offer. I doubt very much you'll admit to anything!

Mickeydj: You post

" The discussion remains about facts, not personalities."

A very short while ago it was about my credentials? You can discuss facts and I'll discuss whatever I feel like, how about that ?

Mickydj: You post

" Yet you stand here anonymously claiming technical authority."

Incorrect Micky, I would never be so pompous to suggest myself as a technical authority. I think your view of me as that indicates your fundamental technical abilities are very poor. Your use of AI to write your replies also suggests you have little imagination also. Your choice of QBT as an investment with your faith misplaced in the FCA suggests little investment experience.

You'll learn, obviously the hard way.!

Mickydj: You post

" Even though asked many times Phimx, you present no evidence of technical credentials, industry background, cryptography expertise, ASIC design knowledge, quantum computing research, or corporate finance qualification."

Correct Micky. I must have overlooked your posting of the evidence of your credentials! I'm thinking you have no qualifications relevant to the subject. Your rather absurd insistance that I have credentials smacks of petulance and immaturity.

Your investment is withering on the vine while you accumulate your evidence of nasty people for the FCA. Your expectations of the policing of the markets are naive, you won't get a refund from the FCA when your money is gone.

Mickydj: You post

" But when each separate strand (funding, quantum research, validation timelines) is consistently framed in a negative light, readers should recognise the directional consistency"

Unfortunately each strand is negative and it is difficult to view those strands any other way, the evidence and the passage of time give more credibility to the negative. I'm sure readers have spotted the directional consistency of the progress made by the company and hence the share price tend with negative consistency.

You appear to have few, if any, positives to say about this company, instead you try to discredit negative posters.

Those very posters continue to predict the direction of this company accurately.

Mickydj:

On the AI again ?

Mickydj: You post

"And NO Phimx, that question is not directed to you"

Discussion board Micky ... discussion !

Mickdj:

Are are your dossiers being actioned by the FCA yet ?

I have had no knocks on my door yet!

Mickydj: You post

" Phimx is trying to frame “paid client” as if it’s some kind of hidden scandal. It isn’t."

No. I think you are trying hard to bend my statement for your own conspiracy theories. I simply pointed out what is stated by Proactive in the end credits. I made no suggestions or insinuations as to what 'paid client' inferred or meant. I left it to readers of my post to read it for themselves.

Usersteve: You post

" The last 2 fundraises have both been for £2m. If the next one is also £2m, then I wonder how willing existing investors would be to take a 22% drop?"

The PI gets no say in the matter, as long as the shares can be dumped on the little man, placings will continue. Companies on AIM have continued with placings and consolidations for years. As long as there is some semblance of a project it's jam all the way until the stupidest of investors eventually see the light. A company name change always helps to hide past history and bring in new mugs.

Usersteve: You post

"

Price: 0.475

No Opinion

"Nominal share price and fundraisesToday 19:53

I notice that the current share price (0.475p) is not much higher than the nominal share price (0.25p). Well, closer than it has ever been."

I don't think a placing can take place if the price is below the nominal. So, perhaps a consolidation is in the air.