This course of action IMO will send a clear message to the Co and management.Well I just completed the on-line voting for the AGM, and surprised myself. I am a huge fan of PVdM and AM and what they have done to bring their vision to reality. So I voted for PVdM's performance rights. What he has achieved is tangible and visible.
As for the other performance rights and restricted stock units, I voted against them all. Why I hear you ask? Don't we need to issue these to preserve cash and still attract top quality people? My answer is a definite yes, with the BIG qualification that I need to have visibility of what the KPI's are so I can understand the value that the recipients have brought and are being rewarded for.
I was a senioir exec in the IT industry for many years (Asia Pac MD of a Silicon Valley based software company) and am very conversant with, and a big supporter of, incentive schemes. However, the lack of information and transparency on display here means that I cannot, in all good conscience, vote for something I don't understand. NDA's and so forth notwithstanding, the dierctors will need to do much better at allowing me to understand the proposals before they get my vote.
My opinion only and DYOR before making up your mind.
Exactly how i voted.Well I just completed the on-line voting for the AGM, and surprised myself. I am a huge fan of PVdM and AM and what they have done to bring their vision to reality. So I voted for PVdM's performance rights. What he has achieved is tangible and visible.
As for the other performance rights and restricted stock units, I voted against them all. Why I hear you ask? Don't we need to issue these to preserve cash and still attract top quality people? My answer is a definite yes, with the BIG qualification that I need to have visibility of what the KPI's are so I can understand the value that the recipients have brought and are being rewarded for.
I was a senior exec in the IT industry for many years (Asia Pac MD of a Silicon Valley based software company) and am very conversant with, and a big supporter of, incentive schemes. However, the lack of information and transparency on display here means that I cannot, in all good conscience, vote for something I don't understand. NDA's and so forth notwithstanding, the directors will need to do much better at allowing me to understand the proposals before they get my vote.
My opinion only and DYOR before making up your mind.
I will wait for the results of the 4C before making that decision.Well I just completed the on-line voting for the AGM, and surprised myself. I am a huge fan of PVdM and AM and what they have done to bring their vision to reality. So I voted for PVdM's performance rights. What he has achieved is tangible and visible.
As for the other performance rights and restricted stock units, I voted against them all. Why I hear you ask? Don't we need to issue these to preserve cash and still attract top quality people? My answer is a definite yes, with the BIG qualification that I need to have visibility of what the KPI's are so I can understand the value that the recipients have brought and are being rewarded for.
I was a senior exec in the IT industry for many years (Asia Pac MD of a Silicon Valley based software company) and am very conversant with, and a big supporter of, incentive schemes. However, the lack of information and transparency on display here means that I cannot, in all good conscience, vote for something I don't understand. NDA's and so forth notwithstanding, the directors will need to do much better at allowing me to understand the proposals before they get my vote.
My opinion only and DYOR before making up your mind.
I will wait for the results of the 4C before making that decision.
I will wait for the results of the 4C before making that decision.
What if the revenue results are basically the same as the last 4C ~$1.2 Mill or maybe slightly less.I will wait for the results of the 4C before making that decision.
The 4c is not revenue, it is cash receiptsWhat if the revenue results are basically the same as the last 4C ~$1.2 Mill or maybe slightly less.
Like Sean stated : .... based on results and not effort.
The 4C doesn't help one understand what KPI's might have been met and by whom.......If it's a god result i will agree with the proposals but if it's bad I'll vote like @toasty
Agreed but I will trust the Co and if KPI's are set and met I'm ok with that.The 4C doesn't help one understand what KPI's might have been met and by whom.......
No, not even a good 4C would convince me because I don't have enough information to make a decision about who should be rewarded for the success. I really feel like I'm being kept in the dark about what constitutes success for directors and key employees.
FWIW
Interesting GREEK NAME for microsofts new AI CHIP...........
WHO ELSE named their ai chip after a GREEK WORD I wonder
Microsoft Building Its Own AI Chip on TSMC's 5nm Process
Code-named Athena, Microsoft has reportedly been working on the chip since 2019.www.tomshardware.com
@TECH I can't see how $0 income at this stage of the company's journey could be considered stable? If we are to judge our CEO as he wishes to be (on results rather than effort) then the 4C numbers need to reflect that. In my view it would be disingenuous of him to claim the technical advances as a signal of his success - these were well underway before he arrived. Sean was hired to head up the commercial growth of the company and if the 4C doesn't show some good progress he will, in my opinion, be guilty of making statements that were, lets say, enthusiastic rather than realistic. I hope that doesn't prove to be the case for all our sakes...............Hi All,
Thought I'd do some numbers, my view is that we will see something like this:
Account Balance of approximately $28.6 Million USD as of 31 April 2023 with zero cash receipts for the period 1 January to 31 April 2023.
Meaning 14.3 quarters of funding, equaling approximately 3.5 years of nicely tarred runway, with no visible potholes.
So the big question remains, will the cash receipts reveal a few million to place us in an even more stable position, in knowing that we
are on the cusp of our first IP signing about to release product/s into the marketplace with AKIDA embedded within.
My opinions, simply just that.
Tech
Well I just completed the on-line voting for the AGM, and surprised myself. I am a huge fan of PVdM and AM and what they have done to bring their vision to reality. So I voted for PVdM's performance rights. What he has achieved is tangible and visible.
As for the other performance rights and restricted stock units, I voted against them all. Why I hear you ask? Don't we need to issue these to preserve cash and still attract top quality people? My answer is a definite yes, with the BIG qualification that I need to have visibility of what the KPI's are so I can understand the value that the recipients have brought and are being rewarded for.
I was a senior exec in the IT industry for many years (Asia Pac MD of a Silicon Valley based software company) and am very conversant with, and a big supporter of, incentive schemes. However, the lack of information and transparency on display here means that I cannot, in all good conscience, vote for something I don't understand. NDA's and so forth notwithstanding, the directors will need to do much better at allowing me to understand the proposals before they get my vote.
My opinion only and DYOR before making up your mind.
See my previoius post re 4C numbers.........I'm not understanding why anyone would vote on any of the resolutions prior to the 4C. Surely it would make sense to have as much information as possible beforehand?
@TECH I can't see how $0 income at this stage of the company's journey could be considered stable? If we are to judge our CEO as he wishes to be (on results rather than effort) then the 4C numbers need to reflect that. In my view it would be disingenuous of him to claim the technical advances as a signal of his success - these were well underway before he arrived. Sean was hired to head up the commercial growth of the company and if the 4C doesn't show some good progress he will, in my opinion, be guilty of making statements that were, lets say, enthusiastic rather than realistic. I hope that doesn't prove to be the case for all our sakes...............
"especially since the AI can also see the rationale"Just for clarity - this means that a panel of your peers and the AI all concluded it was a breach of rules. Not just AI, not just one person. On the balance of probability, regardless of what an individual (especially the author) thinks... it is more likely the majority would agree - especially since the AI can also see the rationale.