Member Info for Spikeyj

I’m a bit more inclined to scotty’s 09:35 view, rather than SB’s 09:41 re s/p on ‘war ending’ (- though frankly never that interested in s/term share price prediction anyway, and in a highly manipulated, sentiment-based AIM like this, afflicted by very persistent ramping crews, short-term movements are often very rigged.)

imv it’s often worth remembering the adage, buy on rumour, sell on news … there’s already been a *lot* of pumping and hype built into the share price here, over many weeks, linked with every tiny dribble of news about possible ukraine/ russia talks, ceasefire, etc etc … EUA share price already substantially being buoyed up, imv, by a much touted story that the war will end soon, much is baked in.

… but, in terms of actual underlying value, and what will happen to EUA’s business and ‘assets’ when putin’s war eventually grinds into some less kinetic phase, i don’t see why people would be more optimistic about how profitably EUA will be able to mine, or about real buyers leaping forward to make chunky offers.

1. they totally failed to sell any assets *before* the war, despite better metal supercycle phase and years of trying, including a lengthy but abortive FSP.

2. metals pricing now less favourable, and licence lengths dwindling.

3. whenever they have tried to mine, they lose money.

4. a cessation (of whatever kind) in ukraine won’t

(A) increase the amount of metals EUA actually has

(B) decrease the costs of extracting and processing those metals

(C) increase how much people want to pay for such metals.

… meanwhile, chillax all, see you in a while, i’m about to get busy with some professional tasks, good luck to all honest and polite folks …

Bought a few for quick trade first thing (not my usual, but couldn’t resist!), flipped em for a couple of per cent, making zero no change to my underling longer term long position.

… trump being trump …

Sure, it may be a boring list, ‘cos it doesn’t keep changing does it? - but it is the important list to keep in mind. some of the rampers would prefer people to forget that list, and focus instead on the trumpy ephemera rather than the rather bleak, cold, unexciting prospects for EUA.

without some ongoing ukraine/putin/ trump sizzle or other smoke and mirrors to distract pis & help play keepy-uppy with the share price, share price will gradually zig and zag downwards towards underlying value ( - which imo is near zero - ).

Added again, small.

08:43, or, putting it another way, the company has not received any notification that dimmy’s shareholding has changed.

Bingowings 00:32, re cloudtag: “Quite what the fascination of the tyre kickers is is beyond me. What exactly are they trying to achieve?”

Vs

Bingowings 8/5 16:52 on bitcoin: “It’s going to beautiful [sic] to watch for all those not invested. All the arrogant tosspots who think they’re smart are going to be left holding the baby.”

Bingowings 8/5 17:37 on bitcoin: “It’s going to be absolutely hilarious to watch from the sidelines.”

… self-awareness is really not a strong point for 1984investor…

As many shareholders of many, many bloody awful companies have found over many decades, to their cost …

…“recourse” is very often not the same as “effective recourse”.

(? do folks on here seriously believe that amit has been acting in the best interests of all cloudtag shareholders? - LOL, to put it mildly.)

07:38, beretta, re “raising funds by deception”…

T the distinction i’m trying to highlight is between these two different possible situations:

(A) somebody sells you shares on the back of rather rampy, over-optimistic, but *not* outright dishonest marketing & lies about their company…. but then, at a later date, *after* they have already received those funds from you —- they start telling lies about how the company is doing.

vs.

(B) somebody sells you shares by making deliberately dishonest statements to you about a company, persuading you to invest money that you otherwise would not have done ….

situation (B)can be understood as raising funds by deception…

but situation (A) isn’t, because the funds had already been raised *before* outright lies were told.

many of the dark arts of AIM CEOs and nomads in general is to try to stay just within the territory of situation (A), rather than situation (B).

You are misunderstanding.

in order to demonstrate that there has been fraud, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that somebody lied about something … since lying is not, in and of itself, a criminal matter.

(& there is no special law that says, if you are a director of a UK company, then it is a criminal offence for you to tell lies about anything.)

in order to show that there has been fraud in some situation, you would also need to demonstrate that *deliberate dishonesty* was used *in order to cause somebody to suffer a material loss*.

there is no law in the UK against lying per se (and i doubt that there is a law against lying in st vincent either).

…. meanwhile, i have no idea at all how your comment about a midwife has any relevance whatsoever to cloudtag.

Even if amit gives out names of buyers that turn it to be simply flat out utter lies, that would not be actionable in and of itself, unless those lies can be shown to have caused somebody an **additional** material loss that they would otherwise not have suffered had he not told such fibs.

… putting it bluntly, it is not a crime for a CEO of a private, unlisted, overseas company whose shares cannot actually be traded to tell a blatant lie, or even multiple blatant lies, although obviously it would be immoral / despicable….

… imo, peeps should focus on what actions can be taken regarding the information / false info they were given around the time that they were persuaded to put money into cloudtag, &/or info/ false information that persuaded them not to sell out when the shares could still be traded.

00:01, johnnyy seems to confusing the issues of a goverment’s legitimacy with the sovereignty of a country. (e.g. trump argued that biden’s government was illegitimate, but trump and his mates weren’t claiming that the USA was no longer a sovereign nation under biden.)

… less seriously, question of who the ‘goodies’ are is not always obvious to some …

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY

Cairns should have come clean about the novum placing fiasco, imv.

Hopefully moscow will be hit many, many more times, preferably with a few more russian top military commanders having really bad car days.

russia bombs kiev, odessa, kherson, etc etc —- so long as putin continues his unprovoked murderous & illegal war of aggression against the sovereign state of ukraine, why on earth would the ukrainians not fight back against their belligerent enemy?

Added, again, small. more fool me, no doubt. mea culpa, mea maxissima culpa est.

Better than last weekend, for sure, when gecko-loves-golf was in overdrive and stretch was anticipating a uniquely transformational week for EUA.

the reality has been, and probably will continue to be, rather more prosaic.

17:49, one additional point; if cloudtag shares were still being traded on an exchange, then it could be a heck of a lot easier to prove something about amit’s b******* updates potentially causing someone further loss, —->. e.g. since some of the more chirpy updates could, arguably, have influenced some punter not to sell their shares when they might otherwise have chosen to do so.

but people who hold cloudtag shares cannot choose to sell their shares through an exchange anyway, since they are not listed or traded on one. [—->. therefore, even a very blatant lie about cloudtag’s prospects could not cause them more loss than they have already suffered by buying into cloudtag in the first place.]

moreover, which might actually be a relatively smart legal wrinkle on amit’s part, the company also stated that it won’t register/recognise transfers of shares between third parties, which sounds like it would rule out private share sales from one pi to another. (again, so even if there was an exceptionally dodgy update, it wouldn’t have caused further loss since the pi couldn’t sell anyway!)

Shurely all this chat about sausages and breakfast will tempt ian_ back onto the chatboard? - it was very much his specialism, after all.

Sold a small number this afternoon, to switch a little more into lgen. still happily long on AV, for a 1-2 year view, looking forward to the fruits of DLG integration in due course (… lol, so maybe more 2 yr rather than 1yr…)

15:16, so far as i am aware, nobody at all has suggested that amit has committed blackmail, which would clearly be a criminal matter in the UK?

re bingowings’ shares … if bingowings paid amit £X for Y shares, and amit then did indeed handover Y shares to bingowings, then that’s just a perfectly straightforward business transaction, no fraud or criminality involved at all. (even if a fairly unwise purchase, to put it mildly).

... shares were offered, shares were paid for, shares were delivered…

the more interesting question might be, could bingowings *prove* that **at the time he was considering buying those shares**, amit told him something that was deliberately or negligently false, which then *caused* bingowings to buy shares he otherwise would not have purchased, and which resulted in a *material loss* for bingowings?

… but it would be a very different situation if bingowings had *already* purchased those shares, and then *subsequently* amit put out all sorts of b***s**t updates about large sums being in escrow, huge DaaP deals having been completed, etc etc. …. since even if such updates turned out to be demonstrably false / lies, they would not be actionable by bingowings unless they had actually caused him to then invest additional sums of money, or otherwise caused him further material loss beyond his original purchase.

(in either case, I don’t think bingowings would stand a snowball’s chance in hell of interesting the CPS to launch a criminal prosecution on his behalf … going on the past performance of CPS in relation to other dud ex-AIM shares, CPS would probably just shrug and say, it’s a civil matter, up to you to pursue it yourself if you wish…. jmo.)

You seem to be posting as though cloudtag were a business that still has some kind of operations, clients, or commercial activities based in the UK.

it doesn’t.

the st vincent registration [if that still exists] isn’t a cover for a genuine underlying UK based company … cloudtag as a company has nothing whatsoever to do with the UK.

night-night, seriously i need to sleep now, it’s been a very busy day here.