RE:RE:RE:RE:The FarmerI, also, have skin in the game (since 2019). I have no idea what your motivations are, and I am not questioning those. But, as someone who totally misinterpreted my analogy, I needed to clarify your interpretation of what I wrote, since much of it is wrong.
I completely agree that investing what you cannot afford to lose if Nano, or any investment fails, is absolutely correct.
I have never, ever tried “to convince novice, or any, investors that Nano One is a “sure thing or a slam dunk.” My “poetry (thank you!) about Nano about to deliver a bumper crop” is misquoting what I said. Please re-read what I wrote. I never used the phrase “bumper crop”. I said “crop”, nothing more, nothing less. I, also, am long Nano, in a Roth, and also hope they can deliver.
In my mind the performance of Nano management has been fairly consistent with the goals they have set. The ultimate evaluation of what their performance actually turns out to be is yet to be determined. This is totally consistent with Nano being a pre-revenue company. This is what being long is all about. If I were to judge management performance by ONLY the stock price on any given day (or minute, or week, or month) I would not be impressed either. But my criteria is different from yours.
When I referenced you “trying to devalue the stock” I was using my criteria in valuing the stock; my criteria, my perspective.
It is absolutely your prerogative to insist they “deliver results” using whatever criteria you choose. Again, your criteria is not my criteria, and vice versa. There is no value judgement that one is better than the other. They are simply different. Only time will tell which is more accurate.
If you are as invested in Nano's success as you claim to be, I think we can both agree when we say "Good luck to all!"