Member Info for ThetaDecay

Ultimately I don't think GROC will struggle to pivot to US souced funding/JV if US takes control of Greenland. They would get a lot more funding/interest from private/instutional investors and could probably relist in the US for 10x the market cap.

Https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/comment/2026/01/08/greenland-belongs-in-the-united-states/

High margin/leveraged shorting on spreadbet. Wow sounds like someone I would take advice from

Scotland actually has a lot of untapped Rare earth metals in the Highlands and have a very large oil reserve in the North Sea.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/17/energy-uk-identifies-areas-to-scour-for-critical-raw-materials.html

Scottish independence is not supported by the supermajority, its close to a 50/50 issue unlike Greenland. Also Scotland is a part of mainland Britain and has MP's sitting in parliament, unlike Greenland which is a seperate Kingdom to Denmark, with a seperate PM and seperate population.

You are comparing apples to oranges, ignoring my points and going in circles. You can read my past posts to answer your questions.

Yes there are no natives in Falklands, they are all British or British descent with a small population being Argentinian. Falklands had a referendum and so did Scotland, I support the same for Greenland. US funding was heavily involved in Scottish Independence push.

I already explained why Greenlanders haven't exercised their right to a referendum yet, this changed now and are likely to exercised their right in the next year. Greenlanders are Danish citizens but they are not Danish, just like British controlled Kenya were British citizens but they weren't British.

Argentina has historically offered money, specifically large payments to Falkland Islanders, to encourage them to accept Argentine sovereignty, most notably when figures like $100,000-$800,000 per person/family were discussed. In such a case, Britain DID ALLOW A REFERENDUM on Falklands Islands sovereignty in 2013.

No, you are ignoring all of my points. They are not the same, one is a foreign territory, another is a part of the UK. One supports 85%, the other supports 50%.

Also I do support a referendum on Scotland if thats what the people want, guess what, Scotland has already been allowed a referendum, so your point is moot. I am only saying, what we allowed for Scotland (A referendum) is what Greenlanders should get too.

Falklanders are 95% British, Greenland is 80%+ natives, not Danish. If Falklands islanders supported independence up to 85% and they were not British and Argentina offered support, I would allow a referendum to take place. Oh wait, Falklands already had a referendum which British government allowed, even with all these differences.

I already said, Scotland is part of Mainland UK, its not a seperate kingdom or territory under British control. Greenlanders support independence with 85% on polling, whereas Scotland is near 50% and have already had a referendum. Scotland is British, Greenland isn't full of Danes, its a foreign territory. I support a referendum, not taking it by force.

Because the country would not prosper or survive without support, Denmark gives them $500 million in subsidies and funds a lot of the resource mining. It's not viable and would lower their standard of living whereas with US funding and backing of Independence this is not an issue anymore.

"When politicians are elected, they realize that independence is not possible because of the economy." Most political leaders, even those in pro-independence parties, have emphasized taking a gradual approach and recognize that achieving economic self-sufficiency is necessary before independence becomes viable.

85% support independence in Greenland, less than 60% support it in Scotland.

No where near the same, Scotland is a part of the UK, not a foreign territory. It is part of the Crown, not a seperate kingdom. The Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of Greenland are two seperate entities. Its more like US paying British Virgin Islands or Falkland Islands for independence and even then those territories are full of British people, whereas Greenland has only 10% Danish population.

Greenlanders use Trump threats to push for Independence from Denmark.

The Arctic territory’s main opposition party has described the current situation a “window of opportunity”, claiming that Mr Trump’s renewed push to acquire Greenland could help accelerate a breakaway. Juno Berthelsen, an MP and foreign policy spokesman for the leading opposition party Naleraq, said: “We’ve been seeking independence for many years now, and there’s a window of opportunity here for us, where we could actually go into a dialogue about concrete steps we can take to better Greenlandic people’s lives.” He said he would be open to entering a dialogue with Mr Trump.

If I was a Greenlander and I could keep my political autonomy, keep my healthcare system as a seperate entity and then get paid $100k up front and make my island much richer for the population in the future, I would also be supporting this. Again, Greenlanders overwhelmingly want independence from Denmark and do not like Danish control. US isn't interested in making Greenland a state, it would be a foreign territory like Australia was to Britain, and US Virgin Islands is currently.

I do not support taking it by force but I think its time Greenlanders got a vote on independence since 85% of them want it and its allowed in the 2009 Self-Government Act. The main sticking points before independence was lack of $500 million subsidies that Denmark give yearly. Well if Trump is willing to give 10x that amount yearly with a $100k one of payment to every Greenlander, I wouldn't call that slavery, I would call that support.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/01/08/greenlanders-use-trump-threats-to-push-for-independence-fro/

Trump to offer political freedom and up to $100k per person in a direct payment to Greenlanders.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-administration-mulls-payments-sway-greenlanders-join-us-2026-01-08/

Greenlanders who over 85% support independence will be swayed by this deal.

Flew under the radar a few weeks back. Cobenfy has been approved in China. Under the 2021 agreement between Karuna and Zai Lab, Karuna receives royalties ranging from low-double-digit to high-teens tiered royalties based on annual net sales in Greater China. I think this should feed through from BMS to Puretech with some royalty revenue?

https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/cobenfy-for-treatment-of-schizophrenia-now-approved-in-china

Zai Labs is another company I'm actually quite bullish on for the next few years, have over 50 ongoing/planned clinical trials globally, including 12 pivotal studies. A lot of them derisked western drugs like Cobenfy. Much like Puretech, share price has been hammered. Also if you are bullish on protein degraders (which a lot of Big Pharam seem to be looking at now) I would take a look at C4 Therapeutics.

Staying long Puretech and I have a feeling this could be a good year for us shareholders, lots of events that can trigger a re-rating.

@offmessage I don't wish for this and i'm not that dumb to want something like that to happen for a share to go up. I bought GreenRoc earlier this year as a bet that this would happen not the other way round. I just see this as a likely play with an administration that is willing to harm international relations for the US's goals. I agree, it would result in instability for a while and I hope the UK stays out of it completely. I don't see this as as something akin to the Russian invasion of Ukraine though, it's something that has been touted in international relations and foreign policy circles for a long time.

@Jeremiah99 Graphite is an important mineral for chip and tech production and goes under the Trump admin's strategic minerals band. US has a big shortage of Graphite production and is looking for expansion. For example, another company I own, Novonix (Australian company) have figured out a way to make synthetic graphite and are building two factories in Alabama to produce locally in US with the Trump admin handing over $60 million in funding to Novonix to build them, still won't be anywhere near enough for full internal self-sufficiency, which is where companies like GreenRoc come into play.

I posted here on the 6th June how the US will likely take Greenland within a few years. Got laughed at by a lot of posters, I think at this point is inevitable. US can take Greenland and the EU/NATO could not realistically fight back, if they did then US could easily bomb all the arms manufacturing capabilities within a few days from their bases. The best you will see are strongly worded letters, protests and sanctions that would backfire on the EU economy. US already has military bases scattered around Greenland.

Now the question is, will Trump go for Yukon/Northwest Territories and Nunavut in Canada next year. Those are the Canadian states with massive rare earth deposits, strategic importance for the Bearing straight and Arctic and would allow Alaska to connect to US mainland + Greenland giving territorial security. Do I agree with these actions? Not in Canada but that won't stop the Trump admin. For Greenland, the same amount of people that oppose US control also oppose Danish control, they have no real ties to Denmark. If the US can give them political and national statehood under their wing then I think you would see the numbers go up in favour of US annexation. It all depends.

REITS and Renewable infrastructure trusts (LMP, SRE, ORIT etc.) but in the more risky side of things I like Puretech Health, Everplay group, Diaceutics and Atlantic Lithium. I still own THG and i'm bullish going into 2026.