Nexoptic Technology Corp V.NXO

NXO Flat Lens IP & The Daugelas

[BarstoolSage]

My take is that accountants forced the writedown of the flat lens intellectual property because the company no longer thought commercializing it was the way to go and , at least for the time being abandoned it.  

Commercial unviability is not automatically fraudulent and on probabilities considering that more than the Daugelas would have to be involved fraud is unlikely to me

As I recall independent verification of data and design was done ...or purportedly done....according to news releases detailing verifiable companies that were involved. That adds to the Daugelas circle of required collaborators 

There may have been some issue in excessive valuation from Spectrum to NXO that benefitting the Daugelas, dunno...but I think the major issue was excessive compensation arrangements in prior and projected years that had to be unwound.

That was what the 8 million shares was about as I recall

As for the firings and such, was the valuation of the flat lens IP somehow shady, inappropriate, leaning to fraudulent? Maybe. Dunno but legitimate question. If so is that the reason for the low share prices? The Daugelas being forced to sell into the bids all the time? By?

Because my speculative questions are as good as any BS around "what happened" and nothing is in court,  I'm thinking the flat lens tech has some value if imagination, time, experimentation etc is applied. We know it is not cellphones but security cameras? telescopes? 

To NXO and us longs and "ins and outs" who lived though all that S$^%tTT the flat lense tech is just a step that led to "The Big Guns" coming in and pivoting to ALLIS  and Qualcom, ARM, NVIDIA and all those nice verticals we talked about when that happened 

Whether the software is on the chip or off the chip ....we know,both are possible 

It's the nature of ALLIS.

But I acutely remember our Big Gun saying it was focused on putting ALLIS directly on\in the chip, making it part of the "built in software" ...in the Snapdragon case ALLIS is simply coded into Qualcom's new AI engine code also proudly part of Its chip announcement. 

I expect that will be the approach with ARM and NVIDA as well

In the case of the one use butt scopes,  ALLIS will be incorporated in another way to massage the image 

And the flat lens tech? Wherever it can be made to be commercially viable.

[Damn1212]

Barstool  When you have the biggest discovery in optics since gallaleo ... you dont assign a vaue of 0$ to it.  It would be nice to  know what happened but I doubt we ever will.  That being said the Market doesn't seem too excited about the current situation as we can all see from the price of shares.  I though we would be closer to 1$ per share right now ... 

[BarstoolSage]

It just proves it's about who knows about this I guess, and who wants to buy. It needs volume.   The story will come out and when it does....  

[cashy]

chart gone wrong ,reading 3400 dollars Nexoptic Technology Corp (NXO.VN) Stocks Barchart Opinion - Barchart.com

[cashy]

Nexoptic Technology Corp (NXO.VN) 3,400.000 +3,399.650 (+971328.57%) 06/03/21 [TSX Venture] BARCHART OPINION for Thu, Jun 3rd, 2021 Tutorial   Alerts   Watch   Help Overall Average: 100% BUY Overall Average Signal calculated from all 13 indicators. Signal

[cashy]

To bad its a mistake, but sure looks nice.

[cashy]

Short Positions for NXO Symbol Report Date Volume Change Shares Issued % Float V : NXO 2021-05-31 47,938 -178,493 147,296,150 0.03

[BarstoolSage]

It's the accounting policy at work DarnDude IFRS requires the write down of any assets not worth what they were when purchased.....so because NXO essentially abandoned commercialization of the flat lens tech (we paid The Ds so dearly for), it was written down to zero.  It does not mean that it does not work, or is worthless in itself, just that the company does not see it as

[Damn1212]

@ BARSTOOL  Accounting Practices are pretty clear that you need to assign Current Market Value on Company Assets.  if they wrote it down to 0$ it means that it is worth 0$ . 

[BarstoolSage]

Not quite...its value is zero without a doubt. Paid X, value now is zero But "worth" is another question.  Just because the company abandoned commercialization...at least for now, does not mean the tech itself is worth nothing. Granted it is worth nothing and valued as nothing wrt cellphones...and DT abandoned it....but it does have other applications. Will NXO pursue those

[Damn1212]

Sorry barstool  The Rules as defined by CRA for valuations are Clear.  Current market Value.  IE - what would the tech fetch if sold today on the market.  The Valuations of Assets are not open to interpretations as you have described. If that were the case Companies would write down buildings and assets in order to avoid paying taxes. 

[BarstoolSage]

Not sure DarnDude I agree taxation is an entirely different beast and an example of the fluidity of the definition of value I think what happens for accounting purposes and taxation purposes if often different and differences are dealt with accounting purposes via the deferred tax account the NDP always loved to attack. CRA doesn't care about assets on your books because keeps forces you to

[ChGuessbetuck11]

Agreed Barstool. I'm not an accountant but I have been in operations on a large scale. My estimate is the CRA classifies this as a type 14 asset.

[stockmonster6]

You're bang on in my books. There was no evidence to counter that the Flat Lens, patented system did not work. It did.  We saw video evidence of it.  It was, indeed, revoluntionary; but required more work to make it a "marketable" product.  That doesn't mean the concept was a failure.  Hence why they started with ALLIS to assist in the flat lenses.  They