The flaw to the logic of bashers here is that they repetively post like armchair quarterbacks which has not been the reality for Poet's evolution. Bashers only seem to care about trading while they seemingly overcriticize and disrespect Poet managment by putting them in unreailistic expectations while they disrespect supporting posters that have a better overview (albeit longterm view) of what has actually taken place and is continuing to evolve towards and exciting endpoint in my opinion.
This is more what is up and from that better (realistic) debate on financial chat sites can take place
(borrowed from FJ on another website (agoracom.com):
"
An interesting exercise is to score POET on his 6 criteria:
1) Must be focused on a huge and growing TAM (total addressable market) - so the TAM has to be in the tens of billions of dollars
2) Does the company solve an acute customer pain point? Is the technology critical in helping the customer save money or make money?
3) Does the company have novel and defensible core intellectual property?
4) Does the company have an experienced and competent management team that can scale?
5) Is the company well funded?
6) Does the company have a robust board of directors, with no customer sitting on the board, that can control the outcome?
My score?
1) yes
2) yes
3) yes
4) Yes for the most part (80%?)
5) Funded yes, but not well-funded (60%?)
6) Yes, but this needs work (75%?)
The 3 criteria that need work are easily addressed. The first three that scored very well, are also the most difficult to achieve.
Another criterion is that the stock should be over $5 to attract institutional attention. "
These are the endpoints that longs are trying to determine as Poet evolves. Rather than criticize, one can gain a better understanding of what is needed to happen.
gdemocracy-captialism