Member Info for TheBasher

@Shmokenn - well put. You and I, and a few others, have been saying this for weeks. I’m increasingly disengaged from these boards as they are so full of 💩.

@LOTM -give it a rest. You do not talk for all investors. Cut the bull💩. Poulden has not lost my trust and I am not asking for a change of management. Whether you like him or not (that's a different question) the company is now on the cusp of a transformation discovery. All I'm doing is waiting for assays from drills which are based on exceptional geosurvey data, and the experience of a senior geologist. I don't feel the need to analyse every percentage point move, nor worry about issues ultimately beyond my circle of influence. Again, I suggest that many people would benefit from certain posters (who try and dominate this board) taking a break from posting , including the posters themselves.

Some posters appear to have a lack of financial knowledge and basic understanding of the markets that is likely to seriously damage their (potential) wealth.

@LOTM-13— when life gives you lemons, rather than squirting the juice in people’s eyes, try making lemonade. 😉

…about the AGM!

I bet some people’s heart rates went up, briefly!

@Warrie - so very well said, Sir. And funny how the d**k swingers only tend to cone out when it’s rising. The only exception I know is a character on the capAI board who shares his frustration about having invested a six figure sum exclusively in LON:CPAI, and it’s down probably over 60%+ in 3-months. Ouch.

@LOTM-13 - the 24m may well be a buy as explained earlier. It's disingenuous to make statements presented as facts rather than as an opinion. Your opinion is it's a sell, my opinion is that it is more likely to be a buy. As a buy order now filled, it's no surprise the share price now off to the races once more.

@Cebo-456 - thank you for reinforcing my comments! Its a given that the many financial institutions deal directly with MMs (including their own) but I don't know many retail investors that go direct to market. Looking at todays market action, my hint that the 24m was a buy may have credence. Also, if I was selling that number of shares, I certainly would not be doing it in one lump and at a highly reduced price compared to last 3-months daily average.

Even though there has been no negative news, it appears that the MMs have used the fact that assays are not yet released to create fear by bringing the share price down, accompanied by some negativity across Social Media and board (not connected, of course!) and some weak holders have sold with those shares being eagerly mopped up by the MMs over a period of time to gain enough shares to fulfil this large order, and potentially some of the other recent large trades (buys), and those sells legitamise a continued price drop. Have to hand it to them, they (and the algos) are great strategists. Just a theory.

@Cebo-456 Technically you are of course right BUT it isn’t, as I suspect you know, not as simple as that in terms of evaluating market demand for shares. There are Market Makers and then there are Market Participants.

Makers are obligated to create liquidity and to literally “make a market”. They are the “middleman” holding inventory of stock.

Participants are the likes of you and me who buy from or sell to Makers. We do not have the facility to trade directly with each other (of course there are exceptions but generally the majority of transactions are transacted via the Market Makers).

Market Markets have a binding commitment to make the market. The fact that a Participant can sell to the Maker is NOT an indication that there is a Participant buyer lined up on the other side of the trade. If there aren't any Participant buyers at the current offer, and the Maker immediately wants or needs to find a Participant to buy those shares, then the price will likely be dropped to find Participant buyers at a lower price.

Another consideration is that if there is a sizeable buy order (for example 24m shares) placed by a Participant and at a desired purchase price that is significantly lower then the current offer price, then the Maker(s) will need to find a way of lowering the price to be able to close that deal. Also, they may not have enough shares in inventory so will need to entice Participants to sell in order to build their inventory. The inverse is also true for large sell orders at a price higher than the current bid. It’s often mentioned that these large orders are not made visible which in effect stacks the odds in favour of “the house” (the Market Makers). All that a retail Participant sees is share price movement that doesn’t correlate with what perhaps “should” be happening. Sound familiar to what some posters have commented on here recently?

It’s a dark art, one which unfortunately only rewards the Market Makers at the expense of the Participants.

@bfd investor - “…even TheBasher tried to explain this to you…” Even? LOL !🤣

@JoeBloggs28 - the Market Markets have a binding commitment to make the market. The fact that a Participant can sell to the Maker is NOT an indication that there is a Participant buyer lined up on the other side of the trade. If there aren't any Participant buyers at the current offer, and the Maker immediately wants or needs to find a Participant to buy those shares, then the price will likely be dropped to find Participant buyers at a lower price.

@JoeBloggs28 - your statement is misleading. Of course, for a market participant to sell, there has to be a buyer. But that buyer could be a Market Maker, taking the shares into inventory, rather than having an immediate market-participant buyer lined up. So, if you analyse the ratio of buy/sell trades that the Mrket Maker does, you could in effect have a day when a Market Maker sells 2 shares to Market Participant buyers, and buys only 1 share from Market Participant sellers. This would equate to a Market Participant buy/sell ratio of 2:1 (and a Market Maker buy/sell ratio of 1:2, as they are the other side of the Market Participant trade).

Terrorists’ fuel blockade poses biggest threat yet to Mali’s military rulers

https://qiraatafrican.com/en/18479/terrorists-fuel-blockade-poses-biggest-threat-yet-to-malis-military-rulers/

A two-month-old fuel blockade by al Qaeda-linked militants has all but paralysed the capital of Mali, turning the screws on the military government and raising concern that the terrorists might try eventually to impose their rule on the West African country. Security analysts say the group known as Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM), which has been operating for months within 50 km (30 miles) of Bamako, currently has neither the intention nor the military capability to seize the city of 4 million people, which it briefly attacked last year. But the JNIM strategy of gradually starving Bamako of fuel, forcing schools to shut and depriving businesses of diesel-generated electricity poses the gravest challenge yet to the military leaders who took power in 2021.

The terrorists’ likely goal is to trigger another coup, half a dozen security analysts and diplomats told Reuters. It would be Mali’s third since 2020, further depriving the country of a viable power centre and allowing JNIM to amass more weapons and funds. In the long run, JNIM is seeking negotiations either with the current government or a post-coup administration, which would be a milestone in its hunt for political legitimacy, according to a Control Risks client note published last week. “With JNIM’s activity putting unprecedented pressure on the government, we warn that the risk of a collapse of the regime, whether through a coup or another form of political crisis, will be very high over the coming weeks,” the note said. A source close to JNIM did not respond to a request for comment about the aims of the fuel blockade. A statement it issued in early September announcing the blockade said its target was “these bandits who are in power”, who it accused of persecuting Malians, especially outside the capital.

Mali’s communications ministry did not respond to a request for comment.

Unlike some of the wannabe geologists with loud voices on this board, Ed Mead has exceptional experience:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ed-mead-24235a46/.

Run all that through ChatGPT and you discover that Ed Mead has been part of companies that have successfully built significant resources or made major discoveries under his tenure. The companies show progress toward commercial viability (tenement consolidation, resource definition, infrastructure ownership) which is another strong indicator. The only but is that it appears he has limited experience in bringing those resources to full commercialisation but if you are assessing his track record at “building discovery value and advancing projects”, then yes, it is strong.

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_690b3108ab748191a0b32491613dab6a

🏁 Overall Rating (Relative to Mining Industry Standards)

Skill Area Rating (1–10)

Technical Expertise 🔟

Exploration Strategy 🔟

Corporate Leadership 9

Commercial Acumen 8

Commodity Breadth 9

International Exposure 8

Longevity / Credibility 🔟

➡️ Overall Strength: 9.3 / 10 — Top-tier technical executive in the ASX junior mining space.

So, what experience do our residents”experts” have, you know, the ones that keep slating the management and drilling activities?

We seem to have a real sesquipedalian superstar in @Alboumphoto!

@Magic-orb - read the RNS.

@Alboumphoto - you posted this yesterday in response to @Markeurasia’s prediction of an RNS this morning: “I think he's either a genius who can fortell the future or another numpty who posts rocket emojis”. Maybe time to doff your cap?

@Markeurasia, I think you have earned the right to post as many rocket emojis as you like! 🚀

@LOTM-13 - relax, the company doesn’t “need” to do anything in respect to keeping you happy and meeting your expectations. You have a schizophrenic approach to WSBN - one minute loving it, the next 💩ing your pants that it’s a scam. I’m not sure you should be in this high risk investment environment, or have you over committed? I’m aware I could lose some money here (currently still significantly in profit) but also that I could make a pile. That’s it in its simplest form. High risk, high reward. There is no point stressing every minute of every day and setting yourself what appear to be unrealistic expectations on delivery of news. This will play out the way it will play out, regardless of anything on these boards.

@Alboumphoto - no, you are reading too much into my comment. Obviously, CapAI is not a hardware manufacturer. But look at the pace of AI influence, even for an established company like NVIDIA. My point is, and always has been, this isn’t a get rich quick scheme. The platforms aren’t even built yet, or those that are not fully launched yet, and it will take time to build significant subscribers in a very competitive environment. However, if they get it right, it could be transformational, but I certainly don’t expect that until earliest late next year if it is to happen. High risk, high reward, and obviously I think they have a good chance of success in the fullness of time.

So good to see the band of get-rich-quick “investors” bailing out of this stock - the sooner the better so that more experienced investors can mop up the shares and allow this to play out with realistic timeline expectations.

🧠 When I asked ChatGPT: “How long did it take for NVIDIA to really start growing in value?” this is the summary:

Phase Years After Founding Description Growth Speed

1993–1999 0–6 years Startup survival, IPO Slow

2000–2015 7–22 years Established gaming business Steady

2016–2020 23–27 years AI boom, explosive growth Fast

2021–2025 28–32 years AI dominance Massive

👉 It took about 22–23 years from NVIDIA’s founding before it really took off in market value.