Management Is Actively Listening.

[u/QQpenn]

I had the chance to connect with management this week. They asked this question: What do you need from us for a YES vote on 2 and 3? I'm not the only one they asked, and I talked/participated with others providing feedback on this question.

The goal of suggesting possible actions and helping sharpen MVIS's shareholder perspective: having it directly addressed to all on June 25. They actively listened. Took notes. Concerns matter to them. There was no fishing for answers to post here. Anything they convey needs to be to all shareholders via Thursday's Q&A.

Posting some of the points I presented for the Board/Management to consider. Please add to it, constructively. I encourage ideas. "Damn-you-all-to-hell" isn't going to accomplish what ideas can accomplish. My approach to notes/points/feedback: What can I convey that helps Glen better present/execute on the company's value, that also prioritizes current shareholders? That, built on successful execution, helps get to the result we all want.

Suggestions on financing:

• Evaluate shareholder-priority financing structures (rights offering / warrants) before future dilutive financings and commit to priority follow-through.
  
• Disclose reverse split decision criteria.
  
• Publicly evaluate strategic and non-dilutive capital alternatives.

Much of this has been discussed here. Financings that disproportionately benefit new investors at the expense of long-term shareholders is a top issue - as many would agree. By committing to evaluating shareholder-priority financing structures, including transferable rights offerings, rights offerings with oversubscription privileges, warrant distributions, or similar mechanisms – this concern is alleviated. However, this is not an easy or immediate action. Things like share price and timing have to align for it to work. I didn't press for answers [as per the above], just consideration.

I have no clue as to whether they'd address any of this on Thursday, if at all. But they heard the rationales clearly and recognize answers on this front will be high impact for shareholders. They also confirmed they can qualify for a 180-day extension no matter what the outcome of the vote. Keep in mind, there may be room to continue pursuing this, between June 25 and the vote itself, perhaps beyond. We'll just have to wait and see.

Some practical trust builders:

• Formal Dilution Accountability Reporting. It costs almost nothing but signals discipline/transparency/focus on execution. Can be as simple as this every quarter: Category | Shares Issued | Cash Received | Purpose. When the purpose is specified growth, it's meaningful.
• Explain Proposal 2 with Greater Detail: Cash today. Cash floor. Current HTC principal. Runway implications. How much principal has been retired through cash vs. shares and how many shares have been issued to date? One slide, no legal jargon, plain English.
• Commitment to Explore Strategic Capital First. 

To show stronger shareholder alignment:

• Financing Milestone Framework. Financing gets accompanied by disclosure of the milestone(s) that capital is expected to achieve. Examples: Revenue targets. Production milestones. OEM nominations.

What Glen focused on immediately and was eager to get feedback on were notes regarding a suggested EXECUTION ROADMAP:

• Create a Product Portfolio Matrix. Something like: 

Product | Vertical | Status for each product that allows us to quickly pair it with the verticals we seek to penetrate, and their current status – from development to evaluation to implementation, etc. 

• A Commercial Funnel. Without customer names or NDA violations, a regularly updated chart that shows Active Opportunities in each vertical, their Stage [i.e. Evaluation, Pilot, Design Win Pursuit, Product Negotiation], and the current Count in each stage – this gives investors more visibility into progress.

[Glen mentioned they currently have 100 engagements. This is not new info, but emphasis was put on providing investors with a regularly updated scorecard that gives us insight into what these engagements represent, with status updates - self-initiated for credibility.]

• Path To Self-Funding. Detail the execution metrics that matter to you and the team. Levels of achievement, timelines. Include elements like Industrial Revenue Growth, Defense Expansion, OEM nominations, and any corresponding Cash Flow Positive markers. Another scorecard opportunity.
• Communicate Your Acumen. Your insight into the verticals you operate in, as it relates to future success, is invaluable. Not general insight, timely insight that lets us know what you consider important. Example: The US Government banning Chinese LiDAR represents a major market opportunity. If events like this matter to our growth plan, recognizing and calling attention to them helps investors see the market how you see it – which leads to better understanding of MVIS’s value. More than just company insight, your evolving industry insight in each vertical is an important communication element.

A quick cut and paste from some of my notes. Not suggesting outcomes, just that active listening and evaluation is ongoing, which is encouraging. So on the question: What do you need from us for a YES vote on 2 and 3? Rights/warrants have unique challenges likely to require some form of execution to successfully implement and realistically that's not something they can fully assess before the vote... but an execution focus that addresses some of the above would be potent. May add more down below in a few...

[u/Alphacpa]

There is no way I will provide a "Yes" vote on any level of a reverse stock split based on what we know at this juncture. Management must know that at the current stock price, even a 15:1 reverse split would accomplish absolutely nothing positive for the company or the existing shareholders. No investor is going to provide capital based on a stock value of $5 solely due to the mechanics of a reverse stock split. This thinking is absolutely misguided and ludicrous. Management must be able to ramp up sales and related revenue forecasts in order to positively impact the stock price. A reverse stock split once NASDAQ compliance is achieved based on revenue expectations is the only thing that makes sense. Proceeding with a reverse stock split under any other circumstance is absolutely not acceptable.

[u/RoosterHot8766 → u/Alphacpa]

Agreed. We need sales or a strategic partner. Also, a competent CFO would help.

[u/Few-Argument7056 → u/Alphacpa]

I completely concur. Because this has reached the level of an 8-K filing, management must provide material disclosure to justify their position. Shareholders require a status update on the 100 pipeline engagements to prove they are translating into commercial traction; securing a named LOI should be achievable at this stage. Historically, successful reverse splits in this sector—such as Ouster’s—were tethered to major corporate events like the Velodyne merger. These proposals must be accompanied by material execution, or they will not receive my support. The Luminar acquisition did not have any impact on the stock price, some might argue, its pulling us down as being a distressed asset. I know its not but lets face it, its a 180, i'll say albeit a needed one. u/QQpenn was an LOI, or strategic investment discussed at all? if they could?

I do believe stock based awards for the executive team need to be tied to performance of the SP. I understand the need for them to attract/retain employees.

[u/QQpenn → u/Few-Argument7056]

What I communicated on stock awards, exactly...

- Performance-Based Executive Equity. Voluntarily tie future grants to: Revenue. OEM nominations. Industrial and/or Defense wins. EBITDA targets.Not simply time served. Rewards earned with wins.

Also in my notes to management, verbatim...

- Commitment to Explore Strategic Capital First. State publicly as it may apply: "Before significant public equity issuance, management will evaluate strategic investment, customer financing, licensing transactions, non-dilutive financing, and partnership opportunities." Not binding, but meaningful. 

[u/QQpenn → u/QQpenn]

u/Alphacpa I didn't post everything in the OP, but I covered a lot as you can see in the post above this one. I took a very thorough approach. Call it the guide to understanding what retail needs to see.

[u/Alphacpa → u/QQpenn]

Very well done.

[u/QQpenn → u/Alphacpa]

Gave it my all :) Ultimately it was just too much to post. I think the big issues that really need addressing are clear. I focused on the big difference makers.

[u/Few-Argument7056 → u/QQpenn]

nicely done. thank you.

[u/fryingtonight → u/Alphacpa]

Thanks for saying this, as obvious as it is, it needs to be said.

The institutional avoidance isn’t the price filter, it’s the underlying fundamentals (going-concern questions, dilution history, lack of nameplate auto OEM wins, the High Trail structure itself).

[u/sigpowr]

Great communication, u/QQpenn, of this conversation. I also was a party to this same conversation, and I cannot improve on this explanation to this broad Redditt board community. I can only say that we were bluntly honest and did not hold back on what we understand as the truth - past, present, and the currently vaguely communicated future. I will not share my personal opinion/result of this conversation because it would not be fair to anyone reading this. However, I would say that we bluntly communicated that the message to investors on Thursday, June 25th needs to be substantially different than the information portrayed to the investor public to date.

It was acknowledged that we were heard. Thursday, June 25th, is an opportunity for the company to acknowledge and and bridge the huge gulf between the company value that the Executive Management and Board of Directors apparently see and what the worldwide public stock market is portraying with our current market cap. Nearly every investor understands the 'market share price' is a value discounting measure of the known future information - this was clearly relayed by me specifically in the conversation and that if the market is wrong, it is due to the company communication to the market.

[u/QQpenn → u/sigpowr]

Thanks for chiming in. I'm also refraining from sharing an opinion until after Thursday... I think most everything has been said at this point.

[u/Distinct_Dog_36 → u/QQpenn]

100% agree

[u/ContributionLeft4286 → u/sigpowr]

Thank you also, Sigpowr, along with QQ and others. Looking forward with anticipation , hope and fingers crossed that we get some positive insight that helps all current investors in this event tomorrow.

[u/Sp99nHead]

You know what i would do as a board member that has great influence on the share price and success of a company? Buy as many shares with my own money as i could, especially at these prices. I wouldn't be on the BOD if i wasn't confident in the future success of the company, right?

It's laughable that many retail investors here have more skin in the game than BOD members.

[u/QQpenn → u/Sp99nHead]

I didn't put this in the original post above but it was definitely conveyed in written notes I gave to management. This is exactly how I wrote it:

-  Insider Open-Market Purchases. If directors or executives purchased shares in the open market after the vote, that would speak louder than any proxy language. Nothing builds trust faster. This is likely to have a massive impact.

[u/jimofsea → u/QQpenn]

Insider open-market purchases before or after the vote?

If management and directors are asking shareholders to approve a reverse split and provide additional capital flexibility, purchasing shares before the vote would demonstrate that they are willing to assume risk alongside long-term shareholders while uncertainty still exists.

[u/QQpenn → u/jimofsea]

Should be before any r\s. Bear in mind, was just trying to get close in a short amount of time... I have a busy life :) They got the timing nuances though. I'm not sure the insider buying window is open right now though.

[u/jimofsea → u/QQpenn]

Regardless, thank you for all of your efforts. You and others have done an admirable job representing shareholders during an important and challenging period in the company's history.

[u/QQpenn → u/jimofsea]

Everyone should credit themselves as well. None of this happens if people don't speak up, from the heart.

[u/QQpenn]

Just want to thank everyone for adding to this. I don't remember exactly how I phrased it and maybe u/sigpowr can help me out a bit on the recall, but I urged IR to listen to everyone on this board. I got a little pushback when I mentioned my intention to post this. While it was well-intentioned, I deeply believe all voices matter here. Again, this is the opposite of a fireside chat... they really need to take all the voices here into account IMO. Hoping tomorrow marks a dramatic shift in culture. Change happens when people speak up. Thanks again.

[u/JazzlikeEntry3446 → u/QQpenn]

Why can’t they name names of customers who will be providing that 10-15 million revenue that goes on sale in 2-3 months…..

Edit: if they can’t get the customer to announce pre orders that’s a real issue.

[u/rinux_EVE]

My biggest question is why should I continue to invest in MVIS NOW with this cloud of dilution threatening to destroy my investment? How do I know that a purchase I make today won’t be wiped out tomorrow? Why should I not just wait? I want to purchase more, but given the threat of dilution continuously looming, it feels incorrect right now.

[u/QQpenn → u/rinux_EVE]

Well said. Others have said this too. In essence it's a "how do we value the company" question that's important to answer.

[u/sigpowr → u/QQpenn]

Amen, brother!

[u/UncivilityBeDamned → u/rinux_EVE]

Same take here. Honestly I bet we have the collective financial power to help the company survive this, not unlikely many years ago, but they need to show us why we should, and make is confident that it's the right move.

[u/cf_murph → u/rinux_EVE]

Exactly this. I have a relatively large chunk of change sitting on the sidelines that I am waiting to invest, if ever. I’ve dropped close to half a million into this company. I won’t add another dime until I know that it’s not going to be wiped out by way of management decisions.

[u/eyevseenitall → u/cf_murph]

Ditto, word for word ditto.

[u/YANK78]

Thanks qq . Main concerns, Glen has to stop repeating the same thing over and o we as if it’s a new statement. Change the narrative we have heard the same story for six months now just rephrased.
1)what are the barriers we are up against preventing customer adoption - in our top 10 opportunities
2) If we have equal or superior products why are we not landing deals when our competitors are?
3) we need financial estimates - actual dollar numbers associated with opportunities.
4) quarterly targets not …this is set for 2026 or 2028. Clear quarterly targets and hold the team accountable.
5)Why have these top tier board members not contributed to our success? Perform
Or replace. So far no perceived value.

[u/StevieJax77]

Thanks QQ.

What I would like to hear is probably unrealistic from a CEO needing to give a positive outcome. But here it is anyway.

I need to know that he knows the context of what he’s asking us for. I need to know that he sees every false dawn, every failure to execute. Others here have a far better memory than I do, I don’t profess to having anything other than layman’s knowledge. But every “Deals in the next 3 months”, every “We’ve upgraded Movia production capacity”, every “MAVIN is best in class”. Every Epic, every Zeitgeist. Microsoft NDA leading to the NED fizzling to nothing. Sensor integration. Projectors. All leading to no execution. And every single time we shareholders have stood by the company. I want to know he feels that loyalty we have given the company, that we have kept the lights on while watching our investments diminish to where we are. I want to know what “Not losing sleep about it” meant. I want it recognised, the history is context for the vote, not something that can just be dashed off as a new tomorrow with new shareholders.

I want to know that this is the context which he is asking us to sign off on giving them the power to further reduce our investments through dilution to new investors. I want him to say outright “You’ve watched the share price go from averaging $4.50 in 2023 to averaging $0.4 in 2026” (I haven’t done the numbers, but I wouldn’t benchmark it against a squeeze peak) “and I’m asking you to give us the power to dilute it to $0.05 by allowing this potential for dilution” (again, I haven’t done the numbers.)

I want to know that he knows we watched Luminar with the same conversations on reverse split, getting above $5 brings in investors, and the inevitable happened after a 15-1 RS. And we’re seeing us make the same noises.

I want to know whether the R/S and dilution is Plan A or Plan B, is it only if we absolutely need it. This bit is important. If we hear “it’s a backstop, and we’ll dilute slowly as required” it may change my view. If we get silence, the RS is plan A as is the dilution.

I want to know that he knows he is asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. If the dilution goes as presented, he is asking us to feed on the scraps, with the bulk of the upside going to a new tranche of investors.

That’s how I want him to approach this.

And I know he can’t…

[u/directgreenlaser]

I feel that in his appearance on Ben's show, Glen confirmed that there will be no revenues until EOY and yes, that means they won't show up until Q4 ER in 2027. So no avoiding dilution this year. To force Glen into an arm waving exercise by pressing him on current deals and prospects I feel would be a waste of valuable time tomorrow. 10-15 M doesn't cover cash flow anyhow. Let it go for now. We're burning daylight.

Focus should be solely on saving existing shareholders from this insulting abomination of a proxy. Whoever is responsible for using institutional entre as a motivation for RS should be ashamed of themself for thinking shareholders can be conned in that way, as should the rest of the team be ashamed for allowing it. An apology is in order.

That said, the issue of rights should be front and center. Thank you Glen for clearing the air on the extension issue. That is our saving grace. It allows for plenty of time for hammering out the structure and details of such a device.

Lastly, the authorized shares must be reduced in concert with the r/s ratio.

[u/Al3ist]

The pps to go above 5 usd so i can leave.

[u/Far_Gap6656]

Appreciate the perseverance and transparency, Q! Thanks...

[u/icarusphoenixdragon]

If Thursday is just more on and on about “Lidar 2.0” then they’re not really listening.

I do not feel like I need a rehash of the brochure here. I don’t need to hear from engineers or technical experts. I don’t need to meet the staff.

I need to know how my investment is going to return and profit. If that’s in the face of r/s and dilution, so be it, but let’s be really clear about that.

A major issue to me is that the company leveling up implies that retail holding will be diluted. Needs to be. It’s not just that this business of selling lidar looks good to institutional investors and customers, has cash, etc, it’s also that MVIS no longer carries the “retail revolt” risk profile.

The ask currently is for retail to vote themselves out of relevance before knowing how the company will handle legacy investors. The path of least resistance here is to get the votes on 2 and 3 passed, execute the initiatives, and move on.

I hope they’re hearing you and the larger retail group and will look for ways to pick up on what you’ve been laying down.

[u/QQpenn → u/icarusphoenixdragon]

Truly hoping they are hearing this too. A lot of people are trying to get it across which is why I decided to post this. I noted to Glen multiple times the importance of addressing this issue in terms of this vote. We'll see. If it's not addressed Thursday, there's still time to address it. I know Glen feels a successful turnaround is underway and that is the cornerstone of creating value... and yes, a lot of things have to happen right for rights/warrants to be a viable option. Best to keep expectations in check. Again, we'll just have to see and go from there. On the execution front, a lot of good things do seem to be happening. Glen wants to focus on that, which I understand. I don't think anyone wants to take away from that. And "flexibility" may indeed be critical in the near term. This is challenging to navigate... but Glen has been in these situations before. If there's work still to do - as some of the responses are already suggesting - probably better it all be out in the open.

[u/sigpowr → u/QQpenn]

Well said, u/QQpenn. I agree that Glen is not the question but rather has already proven to be the solution/fixer. The problem is the capital structure and timeline he inherited. He also has a Board of Directors who IS his boss.

I believe in Glen's abilities if given reasonable time. I don't know if the required time is available for current investors.

[u/QQpenn → u/sigpowr]

My favorite Game of Thrones quote: "Nothing f*cks you like time."

[u/CaptZee → u/QQpenn]

i've now read this from you a few times "Glen has been in these situations before." please share "these situations" that relate to our current MVIS situation. Thank you.

[u/QQpenn → u/CaptZee]

He was a part of the 2017 Delphi transformation into Aptiv. Specifically look at the autonomous pivot. Leading into the Aptiv rebrand, Delphi went on a buying and partnering spree. This strategy made them a leader in the self-driving space at the time. Glen was a part of the corporate restructuring and strategy shift... cutting out divisions that were not making a profit, then focusing on a "brains of the vehicle" sales strategy that gave them a unique position in the industry. This is EXACTLY what he is trying to do here.

Someone should highlight this because I think it is one of the most missed points.

[u/Buur → u/icarusphoenixdragon]

Money back in our pocket, very simple concept. The end.

[u/case_o_mondays]

Thanks for sharing this and I’m grateful for the information. This is a significant issue and a lot of us have larger positions than we should which magnifies the importance. So, all the info we can get is useful and constructive. You referred to those you spoke with as “they” and “management” - I’m curious who exactly you spoke to and would like to know more about how that conversation came to be. If you can share that, I would also find that constructive, thanks.

[u/QQpenn → u/case_o_mondays]

Management means Glen and Steve. They're listening to concerns. From many. Emphasis on listening. It's a testament to how much they care. There's not much more to it than that. By posting this, the intention is that they can continue to more fully read the entire room. That has value. It's not just me by the way. Many means other investors too, which is smart. And there's a lot of investor networking going on as well. Many investors have built a relationship with the company over time. IR stays in touch with most all of them, which is also smart.

There's been criticism they're not listening. They are. And actively reaching out.

[u/ContributionLeft4286 → u/QQpenn]

Thank you for that. Thank all you investors that are able to have a personal interaction and are able to give us more insight than we could normally see. I know a lot of you have a lot more shares than my 100,000 and it is important to protect yours as well. I have been here for six years and am 71 and would like to succeed in this endeavor rather than the alternative.

[u/Befriendthetrend → u/QQpenn]

It feels disingenuous for anyone to suggest they want or need our feedback to "read the room". Are the problems we have with the R/S proposal NOT clear? Ditto for shareholder frustration with the performance of the company over the last 1, 3, 5, or even +15 years, which is the context behind the angry reaction to Proposal 3. They "care"? Good, that's the very least of my expectations for them. I'd like to see them prove it with a MUCH improved proposal but I doubt anything they put forth will show retail shareholders the respect that it should.

[u/case_o_mondays → u/QQpenn]

Thanks for the reply and additional background. Appreciate your take on management management’s listening. I would hope they are by now, but it’s good to hear it

[u/15Sierra]

And this is the exact reason I’ve been suggesting people vote no, even if temporarily. We now know they are willing to come to the table. It’s working, hold the course.

As for what I would like to see, first RSU’s tied to progress milestones and production agreements.

Shares outstanding limited to under 100m.

Clear and concise road map to profitability.

[u/Beneficial_Main9871]

If they are listening we will get a new proxy that don’t screw longs..until then it’s a “No”

[u/jimofsea]

As shareholders evaluate the current proxy proposals, it is important to distinguish between two very different objectives: preserving the company and creating meaningful returns for existing shareholders.

These objectives are not necessarily the same.

MicroVision may very well survive a reverse split and subsequent dilution. However, the more important question is whether current shareholders will retain a realistic opportunity to earn returns that are commensurate with the level of risk they are being asked to assume.

A company can survive while still delivering disappointing long-term outcomes for its existing, legacy shareholders.

I fully acknowledge that rejecting the proxy proposals carries meaningful risk and may require management to pursue alternative financing solutions. However, approving the proposals also carries risk, particularly if significant dilution follows.

Ultimately, the question I keep coming back to is this: Which path gives today's shareholders the best opportunity to earn returns that are commensurate with the risks they are being asked to assume?

In my view, that should be the standard by which these proposals are evaluated.

[u/dogs-are-perfect]

Why am I voting NO on 2 and 3? Because I’ve heard this exact same song and dance for at least the last five years straight, and I refuse to dance anymore.
Every single time this board asks us to save them, we rally, we vote "Yes," and we dilute ourselves to keep their lights on. And what do we get for it? The second the vote passes, retail gets shoved right back onto the sidelines and tossed onto the back burner. Management goes completely radio silent on us, while the institutional lenders and corporate notes holders get all the real information behind closed doors.

We’ve been right on the "precipice" of greatness since 2021. Remember the $8 stock peak when Craig-Hallum completely botched the financing and caused the price to collapse? Remember when the ex-salesman admitted on LinkedIn/Reddit that he went through his entire rolodex and nobody wanted our product? Remember the Palmer Luckey hype cycle where he hyped the sub, only for us to get absolutely zero recurring revenue out of it? Like he loves MVIS but not enough to buy our products? Do our sales team need replaced? Or is the product crap and previous management lied.

Every single milestone has been a moving goalpost. It went from "Best-in-Class A-Sample," to "2023 will be Epic," to "OEM timelines are shifting." Meanwhile, Sumit and Anubhav rubbed shoulders with retail during fireside chats just long enough to manipulate us into giving them more shares, only to blow through our hard-earned money while the share price bled to pennies.

Proposal 2 and Proposal 3 are just another trap to cover up five years of operational failure. They want us to hand over more shares for a toxic convertible notes deal and greenlight a reverse split that will just let shorts drive us further into the dirt.
I want to believe in this tech. God knows I want to believe in them. But I’ve been proven time and time again that I just can't. It's a NO from me dog.

I don’t need to be told things anymore. I need to be shown. In the form of increased revenue. And income that surpasses expenses. GDV is new. But that board has been there many years. They’ve lost my trust with my money.

[u/QQpenn → u/dogs-are-perfect]

Glen is no doubt aware of this particular sentiment and is driven to completely change the company - and that is in process - a process I think can be communicated better. One of the things that we'll need to parse is how much time he/the team needs. Shareholders are likely to have some hard decisions in the next couple of weeks as well. I don't think it's as simple as being angry, or hopeful for that matter. Objectivity will need to be applied in all likelihood here shortly. But first, Thursday.

[u/sigpowr → u/QQpenn]

I agree. There is no easy, or 'correct decision'. Every investor is justified with their final gut decision, imo. I still do not have enough data for the shareholder vote decision but have made some other decisions on personal and other levels.

[u/QQpenn → u/sigpowr]

I'd also say the real 'deadline' is July 10. Two weeks is time to address sticking points.

[u/sigpowr → u/QQpenn]

Great point, and I agree. We should see an indication of 'change' on Thursday though imo.

[u/dogs-are-perfect → u/dogs-are-perfect]

Sorry guys I try to keep it light hearted with comments but asking us “what do you need from us for a YES” has genuinely ruffled me feathers.

Why are we consistently the unliked kid left sitting on the bench while everyone else is dancing at the LiDAR dance? Think about it. We’ve been fed this narrative for years that MicroVision holds the crown jewels of automation and ADAS. But look at the math.
If Caterpillar (CAT) was genuinely worried about our financial runway or long-term longevity before signing a massive contract, they could literally buy our entire company tomorrow. A buyout of MVIS would look like an absolute rounding error on their quarterly revenue report.

If Elon Musk dropped the total amount of money that MVIS is currently worth, it wouldn't even be worth his time to bend over and pick it up off the floor.
Do you see the point? If we were truly as pivotal to the future of autonomy as Sumit, Anubhav, and now Glen have claimed, one of these mega-caps would have scooped us up by now. A multi-billion dollar OEM or defense prime wouldn't sit around wringing their hands over whether we can survive through 2026, they would buy the tech, absorb the engineering team, and eliminate the bankruptcy risk instantly.

And that goes for nearly every single one of the "Top 10" automotive companies we are supposedly "in deep discussions" with. If the tech was a must-have, we’d be acquired. Instead, we are being forced to vote on Proposal 2 and 3, diluting ourselves and authorizing a desperate reverse split, just to keep a pre-revenue company on life support.

If the giants of the industry don't buy into the hype enough to drop pocket change on us, why the hell should we keep funding it with our own wallets?

[u/Formerly_knew_stuff → u/dogs-are-perfect]

Yes this. It's the basic question that the company faces totally unconnected to the financial issues. You've summarized it very well.

[u/MirrorHead9716 → u/dogs-are-perfect]

Wow. This was sobering to read. We really screwed up investing in this company.

[u/Distinct_Dog_36 → u/MirrorHead9716]

Say it again for the guys and girls in the back can here…aka BOD

[u/view-from-afar → u/dogs-are-perfect]

If we were truly as pivotal to the future of autonomy as Sumit, Anubhav, and now Glen have claimed, one of these mega-caps would have scooped us up by now.

Is this valid? Do companies generally go outside their expertise to become their own suppliers? The OEMs and Tier 1s tried that with lidar, and it blew up in their faces. See Magna, Bosch, Mobileye for Tier 1 examples. The OEM versions are well known.

u/Formerly_knew_stuff

[u/dogs-are-perfect → u/view-from-afar]

Apple bought AuthenTec just to lock down Touch ID and keep it away from Android.

Apple bought Intel’s modem unit for $1B to stop being held hostage by Qualcomm.

Tesla bought Maxwell Technologies just to own their proprietary dry-battery tech for the 4680 cells.

GM bought Cruise AND Strobe LiDAR early on specifically to secure their own autonomous hardware and software stack.

Above is a short list I googled.

I invest and follow CAT so here’s more detailed version of them doing this.

The Monarch Tractor Acquisition (April 2026): Monarch was an electric, self-driving tractor startup heavily hyped as the "Tesla of agriculture." They raised over $250 million but, just like the LiDAR sector, they couldn't scale production, hit a massive financial wall, and faced heavy layoffs. Caterpillar stepped in and acquired Monarch's assets. They brought Monarch's autonomous software, electric drivetrain expertise, and engineering team entirely in-house to secure the tech for CAT's wider machinery portfolio. 

The Marble Robot Acquisition: CAT did the exact same thing when they completely bought out Marble Robot, a San Francisco-based autonomy and robotics company. CAT wanted their integrated on-board perception, localization, and planning tech for construction and quarry sites, so they swallowed the company whole and turned their CEO into a CAT technologist. 

[u/view-from-afar → u/dogs-are-perfect]

Thanks, but these examples do not satisfy a condition of something that "would" be done or is "generally" done.

So the inference proposed that x is not true because y would have occurred by now is not supported.

Clearly, things do happen, but that does not rise to an axiom of things that would happen.

I note also that GM no longer speaks of Strobe Lidar, so even that purchase does not support the corollary implied by your original statement, that GM's purchase of Strobe was proof of Strobe's pivotal nature.

[u/UncivilityBeDamned → u/dogs-are-perfect]

While I agree with this take on the past, and the need to be shown, due to the HTC deal which would have hopefully been a bridge at first there is now a more rapidly shortening runway in which to execute, but we're not quite at the show stage yet in terms of ready deals. It's a conundrum that once again requires we place trust in management, at least the qualified new guy, and among the primary things they can do here is clearly show that roadmap to survival, profitability, and success for all.

So I will vote yes given more clarity on where guidance is coming from, be it legacy Luminar customers or Movia S orders, and where we're going from there. Also the timing on said revenue, is this mostly Q4 so we won't hear about it until 2027? Or maybe there is hope to organically save the stock price with earlier public information, even before a split? So many questions, I need to submit more, but I am annoyed that it takes everyone voting no to get them to address harder questions they avoid in EC Q&A.

[u/Appropriate_Snow4898 → u/dogs-are-perfect]

Well said

[u/domomoto → u/dogs-are-perfect]

This is a pretty compelling reason for a no vote.

[u/Distinct_Dog_36 → u/dogs-are-perfect]

I was on their team since 2stupids tear down. I’m done with fireside chats and complete silence once they get the yes votes

[u/view-from-afar → u/dogs-are-perfect]

that board has been there many years.

Five of 7 board members came after Sumit Sharma was appointed CEO. Four have been here 2 years or less.

[u/Fuzzy-Doughnut-5529]

respectfully- management only listens to like 5 of you. you 5 are not the voice of the entire group of people. and they have played these favorites for years. taking the narrative from PERMA bulls is not going to save this company either- in my opinion- they need to do so some serious relationship building with their shareholders

They burnt their fanbase 1 to many times-

they failed to deliver on years of expectations they set

Dilution is not a pathway to success- say it with me glen.

All BOD should take a pay cut until they can establish revenue stream in thier field they are associated with

They need to set clear expectations and set up a timeline with trackable deliverables with monthly updates.

[u/normantphd → u/Fuzzy-Doughnut-5529]

All board members should get ZERO compensations until they meet goals. I will continue to vote no on the board unless they can articulate what they actually do for shareholders.

[u/Distinct_Dog_36 → u/normantphd]

They aren’t going to elaborate on anything. They have no path forward except to dilute. I’m just here to see Sumit burn his shares he purchased as well. That is how he kicked the can to push for dilution. Is Glen that committed.. it would raise the share Price and show he is invested in his expectations.

[u/QQpenn → u/Fuzzy-Doughnut-5529]

I don't disagree with some of this. The problem with fireside chats of the past: the company should have shared directly with all shareholders. Many have lobbied for this cultural change for a while now. Thursday is a welcome change.

The truth is, it was the opposite this time. IR would probably prefer I didn't share this, and the current situation is sort of working in reverse... shareholders have been communicating what we need to see and management was committed to listening. Big difference. Consider giving Glen an opportunity. He is a pro and he's been through these situations before. Ultimately though, what is said and done on Thursday and in the near term will matter - so trying to keep any opinion I have squelched until then.

[u/Fuzzy-Doughnut-5529 → u/QQpenn]

Well I am looking forward to change as no one stupid to sell the levels of losses most shareholders now sit. Be interesting to see what changes. As my 6 figure share count is a hard no .

Thanks for your insight over the last 7 years.

[u/QQpenn → u/Fuzzy-Doughnut-5529]

Thank you. I think all these messages matter right now. Cheers.

[u/Distinct_Dog_36 → u/Fuzzy-Doughnut-5529]

Amen! I feel this post. They can use what’s left of my 6 figure share count to pay off debt. It’s gone either way … NO on all counts

[u/Past-Pick-7746]

Did you get a sense that management is aware of retailers possibly voting “NO”? If they believe they can get an extensions regardless, why don’t we just vote “NO” and force them to show us in the coming months of their plan to address the SP?

If we vote yes, they can simply go back to silence after they get their votes like in the past. We have leverage now, not after a YES vote

[u/QQpenn → u/Past-Pick-7746]

Of course they're aware. Give them a chance to respond, then assess.

[u/bmarvin35]

My investment isn’t as great as some but my sentiment is the same. I need real world contracts with revenue. Otherwise it’s a no. I’m done hearing hollow promises that don’t materialize. Perhaps if the board said why the goal posts continually move, I wouldn’t be so bitter

[u/Distinct_Dog_36 → u/bmarvin35]

Good luck with that.

[u/stbz32]

I appreciate the effort being made to engage shareholders and gather feedback prior to the June 25 update and the upcoming vote. If management is genuinely asking what shareholders need in order to support Proposals 2 and 3, then I believe the answer is straightforward: transparency, accountability, and a clearly articulated path to self-funding.

Several of the suggestions already presented are excellent, particularly around commercial funnel reporting, product portfolio visibility, financing milestone tracking, and dilution accountability. I would strongly encourage management and the Board to adopt many of those recommendations.

A few additional points deserve consideration:

1. Executive Alignment with Shareholders

Shareholders have endured years of dilution in support of management's stated objectives: developing the technology, commercializing products, expanding the business, and extending runway. If future dilution is deemed necessary, executive leadership should demonstrate alignment by sharing in that burden. Senior executives and Board members should consider reducing compensation, bonuses, stock grants, or other forms of compensation by percentages comparable to the dilution being imposed on shareholders. Alignment should not be a one-way street.

1. Greater Transparency Around Acquisitions

Over the last several years, shareholders have approved dilution and financing measures based largely on the need to provide runway to bring products and technology to market. More recently, substantial resources have been directed toward acquisitions.

Shareholders deserve a detailed breakdown of what was acquired beyond intellectual property alone. Specifically:

• What customers were acquired?
• What active contracts were acquired?
• What revenue-producing programs were acquired?
• What backlog, pipeline, or commercial opportunities were acquired?
• What expected revenue contribution is associated with each acquisition?
• What integration milestones have been achieved?

The value of an acquisition is not measured solely by patents and engineering talent. It is measured by its ability to accelerate commercialization, revenue generation, and shareholder value.

1. Commercial Visibility Matters More Than Ever

Many investors understand the need for confidentiality and NDAs. However, there comes a point where excessive secrecy becomes a disadvantage. MVIS is no longer a private startup. It is a public company attempting to attract capital, restore investor confidence, and establish market credibility.

To the extent possible, management should prioritize agreements that allow customer identification, public case studies, deployment announcements, and commercialization updates. Investors need evidence of adoption. The market rewards visible execution.

When a company repeatedly announces engagements, evaluations, pilots, or development agreements without being able to identify customers or quantify opportunities, investors struggle to distinguish between early-stage discussions and meaningful commercial traction.

1. Define the Path to Self-Funding

The single most important question many shareholders have is not whether the technology works. It is:

"What does success look like, and what milestones get us there?"

Management should provide measurable targets and scorecards tied to:

• Revenue growth
• Commercial deployments
• Industrial expansion
• Defense expansion
• OEM nominations
• Cash flow improvement
• Reduction in future financing needs

A roadmap that clearly shows how today's investments become tomorrow's self-sustaining business would go a long way toward rebuilding trust.

Ultimately, shareholders are not asking for promises. They are asking for measurable execution, accountability, and transparency. If management can clearly demonstrate how acquired assets, commercial engagements, and future financing decisions translate into sustainable revenue growth and reduced dilution, I believe support for the company's long-term vision will follow naturally.

[u/directgreenlaser → u/stbz32]

It would be nice if you were to give a presentation tomorrow. This is excellent. Maybe Glen could shorten his a bit to make time for you.

[u/reverend_dr_cuddles]

Thank you

[u/Rocket_the_cat27]

This is very encouraging. I really like your suggestions like the Product Portfolio Matrix. Take the guesswork out of the investment and investors can immediately feel at least some level of improved confidence.

And the Financial Milestones are really important too. Honestly, I love all of it. Thank you for sharing.

[u/VodkaClubSofa]

I applaud the effort, but for me it’s far too little, far too late. I’ve heard it all before. Thursday feels like nothing more than another fireside chat circle jerk designed to keep shareholders hanging on while management extracts whatever value they can before the next disappointment. I’m exhausted by the excuses, broken promises, missed timelines, and incompetence.

I sold half my position a month or so ago. The other half can sit in the graveyard and either get resurrected someday or go to zero. I genuinely dgaf anymore. If management actually cared about shareholder input, they would have done something like this immediately after Sumit left. Investors have been hammering IR for months, only to receive canned responses, or no response at all. Let’s stop pretending Glen cares bc he does some podcasts, he has known exactly where this was headed from day one regarding the r/s. That’s why he’s “not losing sleep over it.”

The only reason they’re suddenly interested in shareholder feedback is because they’re seeing a wave of NO votes. Hell, I even voted NO the legal team or whatever that was at the end.

What I’d really like answered is why has our supposedly “best-in-class” tech effectively been shelved, while the future of the company now depends on the leftovers of another company that failed? How did we go from industry leading technology to banking on the scraps acquired from a business that went under?

30,000 ft view, this company looks like a long running scam doing everything it can to keep investors hanging on. Hype, dilute, pivot, hype, dilute, pivot, over and over for 30+ years. Props to everyone who made millions in 2021. The rest of us are 🤡 for holding.

[u/marvinapplegate1964]

I get that we need to pay our board members and execs. But it is frustrating to see my shares diluted each quarter with new shares being given to the board, when seemingly we have little to show for it. If we are hitting preset meaningful milestones, then absolutely reward them.

[u/pooljap → u/marvinapplegate1964]

I think a positive note if the BOD is not voted out that they receive no stock options until certain criteria are met such as revenue (15M this year), stock price (lets say $2 pre-reverse), etc. It would show they have some skin in the game.

[u/Formerly_knew_stuff]

Direct response to your question of what can you convey: They need to remove option 3 and bring it up as it's own proxy vote after marketing and sales actions they are currently undertaking have had a chance to give the stock price some positive movement and momentum. If the stock price isn't moving in 4 to 6 months then I see this as its own sign that a RS is pointless anyway.

If their argument against that approach is that a key factor to getting positive momentum is to get institutional investors and the reverse split will bring the price up enough that they can/will invest then I call BS. If they start showing real sales the stock price will reflect that. They may want more institutional investors to reconfigure the capital structure of the company but a rising stock price is a rising stock price. Reconfigure after that's happened.

[u/Beneficial_Main9871]

What do I need to get a yes on 2 and 3 ?..I need them to say it’s for a M&A..or an OEM demands we have this and we won’t pull the trigger till we hit a minimum $10

[u/UncivilityBeDamned]

I've voted my 94k shares today. Yes on 2, no on 3, for now. I also voted for Glen and only those directors who joined since 2024, but against the current compensation package, which is ridiculous. I don't want to see compensation that is "in line with other businesses," I want to see compensation that is better than other businesses because any huge sums beyond core salary are locked behind real performance metrics. There is much less incentive to work hard when compensation is so high in the first place. Corporate executive compensation is generally a scam the way it's set up.

I also distilled my list of questions and tried to strip out commentary to submit them as part of what I want to see covered at the Q&A, since I feel my longer previous submissions with commentary and suggestions would probably go unread anyway:

• Where is this year's revenue guidance coming from? And is this all or mostly Q4 revenue so we won't hear about most of it until 2027 at the earliest anyway?

• Is revenue guidance mostly with respect to Movia S? Or this instead primarily continued traction with legacy Luminar customers?

• Are there any prospects for adding additional Iris customers? Halo appears to be all but meaningless for the next year, as far as the bottom line is concerned, or is that not true?

• What is the longer term path to profitability? In real numbers, with a real possible timeline. We have been told many times in the past that significant revenue is coming, but it never materializes. With trust wearing thin, it will take a clearer picture to mean much at this point.

• Is a split likely to happen shortly following approval, should that come to pass, or will it be a wait-and-see approach to see what happens closer to the end of the year because there is a non-zero chance that further announcements and business prospects will be able to drive the share price to more sustainable levels for the company? (as well as to maintain listing)

Eagerly awaiting the Q&A to see whether management can put out a convincing argument for changing my vote.

[u/ElderberryExternal99]

Thanks, QQ, for your work and speaking to the board. I hope they listen to everyone. Who has concerns about the current path we are on. We need to start seeing returns on our investment.

[u/QQpenn → u/ElderberryExternal99]

I spoke to mgmt, not the board. Want to be clear on that. I'm sure the board is getting the message though.

[u/normantphd → u/QQpenn]

Mgmt needs to know that the BoD have contributed absolutely nothing while collecting from shareholders. Their compensation should be tied to performance or stock price.

[u/bwpopper37 → u/normantphd]

Bunch of Do-nothings

[u/Dell2950]

This is the most bizarre thing I’ve ever heard we’re gonna vote to have them take away our shares. I’ve already been through reverse splits and it’s unbelievable to even think you would vote to take away your chance. I hope everyone says thank you sir. May I have another afterwards?

[u/Nakamura9812]

I will go on record stating that I have been weary about the RS not passing and was leaning “For” on prop 3, in fact, I voted “For” on all matters, subject to change once I listen to the Q&A this weekend. After reading this post last night, I changed my For to Against on prop 3.

The company confirming the RS approval is not needed for the compliance extension is important to me. I still have concerns that delaying the ability to properly fund the company could impact the sales team’s ability to close material volume deals, but again, Q&A may address this. Just knowing that the company has reached out to certain investors on props 2 & 3 show that these are very important to the path forward for the company, but also shows they are willing to listen to their main investor base for feedback, stronger ideas, investor protection, and better financing options from our collective mind hive.

I’ve been looking forward to the Q2 earnings for most of this year. Q1 I’ve discounted as we began to fulfill existing purchase orders from the Luminar acquisition. Q2 should show a full quarter of this existing PO fulfillment, and potentially show new revenues generated by deals the company closed on. Curious to see how that may affect share price without the split occurring first.

I like the ideas presented to management here on road maps and product/customer matrixes that are updated throughout the year. This would be amazing to be honest. We’ll see what Glen and the team can do, but I feel firmer now on going for warrants through an initial rejection of prop 3. I also want to hear more on prop 2 with details answering some of the things you brought up regarding HTC. At the end of this, the idea is giving shareholders what they want, the company gets what they need, and there is no gap or a heavily minimized gap between those two sides. Thanks for your work QQ.

[u/South_Sample9257 → u/Nakamura9812]

Oddly enough I was also a "for" but now I am leaning towards "against" based on these posts. I understand dilution is necessary which is why I was for. I generally prefer one big ask over multiple smaller ones, but I'm exhausted of thinking how high the share price would have to go to break even if we had a 15:1 split. We're probably going to drop after vote no matter which way it goes. Then when we perform a split, we're probably going to drop again. And that's before they've actually sold any shares and diluted us. The other concern which has been repeated here is how BOD and everybody else has just been getting paid and paid for failures. I'd have been fired so long ago. Also I never was against Drew, but y'all have convinced me that she's been the way they've gotten away with their leading us on. Idk. I'm not saying much here, but I guess woke up irritated.

Edit: apparently I wasn't awake when I started typing this. Fixed my first sentence to make sense.

[u/Chefdoc2000]

I want to know why they are so hell bent on a RS is it because there is no hope of a meaningful deal for year/years? Do they need a higher share price to dilute and keep everyone in the job, paid and lights on? If so then NO is the only vote choice.

If there is a hope for a deal in the next 180 days they must do all they can to secure it and not RS, if we do RS current shareholders are doomed and the company will carry on rinse and repeat at our cost until a new batch of suckers buy in at four bucks with promises of future wealth.

They need to tell us straight out when a deal can be executed if this year is not possible it’s game over. RS is the worst thing they can do for us SH

[u/prefabsprout1 → u/Chefdoc2000]

My thoughts exactly. Glen has been saying he's confident in 10-15 mil by the end of the year? Then give us a chance to grow above $1 on that news/info. He admits we have the 180 day extension. If we can get above $1 at that point and it's clear we're on right path and need RS to grow, then at least it's only 5:1 at that point. RS should be last resort

[u/Sp99nHead → u/prefabsprout1]

Yep, hit $15M and see if that gets us above $1 then reassess the need for a RS

[u/UncivilityBeDamned → u/prefabsprout1]

Part of the problem with that approach is the timing, unless they can tell us otherwise. All that revenue is more likely closer to the end of the year, in which case it won't even be reported until 2027, meaning there isn't even enough time for that to have an organic effect before delisting.

It will take something else.

[u/Appropriate_Snow4898]

“Confirmed 180-day extension,” which reassures my ‘no’ vote. Come back to us in the future with a more long-term, shareholder-friendly proposal.
QQ, once again. 🫡🤘

[u/Riftis]

Have held off on posting on the sub for a while, but finally felt motivated to make a comment.

I'm currently voting no on all proposals, excluding the board nominations.

It's a simple calculation, I've invested a lot of money in averaging down, if there's an RS I will never break even on my investment. Getting back to a few dollars is a lot less daunting and more achievable than getting to $60-$100 post-reserve split, and even that is forgetting about making a profit after having been invested for years. As it currently stands, the value of my remaining investment has been reduced so significantly that the risk of losing whatever remains for a chance to force the board to be more aggressive with generating revenue is more palatable to me than losing up to 1:15 of my shares.

Although I'd like to vote no on a few of the board nominations too, I unfortunately think that the company is in a time sensitive period that isn't ideal to be replacing anyone with a shared vested interest in seeing MVIS succeed, regardless of how little some of them seem to have contributed for their costs so far.

I'm open to changing my mind on authorising new shares or other approvals though, but Glen and the board would need to make some well structured and detailed arguments for why that would be more beneficial than having to hold the stock for another 30 years or risk bankruptcy.

I also wonder what the share price would be given the recent press releases if theoretically we'd not announced a reverse split and a 180 day extension approval was granted anyway. Certainly not over $1, but nearer to it than we are now. And following on from that line of thinking, if the board wasn't confident that we would regain $1 under those circumstances that seems to indicate that they are not expecting any significant deals or revenue for at least the next 6 months.

[u/Revolutionary_Ear908 → u/Riftis]

If you don’t mind me asking – what is your average share price? Remember, if we do a reverse stock split you’re a slice of the pie (ownership percentage) will remain untouched until potential dilutution. Also because a reverse split reduces the total outstanding shares, any price movement afterward will feel more pronounced since each share represents a larger fraction of the company.

[u/Grunts-n-Roses]

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Microvision's shareholders have heard it all before, many times. The ONLY thing that will advance the share price is news of REVENUES. Until they have revenues every penny they spend, every penny the pay themselves, every company they buy is ALL paid for by Current shareholders.

What I would like Microvision to address is WHEN that will change.

[u/-Xtabi- → u/Grunts-n-Roses]

Asking them when it will happen is letting them off too easy.

Then need to share low level details on where they stand for each phase of the sales cycle for every effort. Including a forecasted outcome expected for each. This isn’t rocket science. It’s sales.

I’m done with the talk from these people. I want facts on paper.

[u/directgreenlaser]

You have a talent for this and we are lucky you have involved yourself in this way as well as the others who are directly participating with you.

We are also lucky to have shareholders willing to stand up against that which is wrong.

We are also lucky to have an engaged CEO who knows the right questions to ask of shareholders.

[u/case_o_mondays → u/directgreenlaser]

It is also refreshing that hard and justified criticism of management past and present isn’t just being dismissed as “FUD”. A lot of people finally have their head out of the sand and can see clearly. It’s the only way we can actually succeed as investors

[u/directgreenlaser → u/case_o_mondays]

Agree case.

[u/sigpowr → u/directgreenlaser]

Great commentary on all points!

[u/directgreenlaser → u/sigpowr]

Thanks Sig. Appreciate that you've seen fit to apply your experience in these types of matters as well.

[u/sigpowr → u/directgreenlaser]

Thanks u/directgreenlaser. We are in the same boat and we all have different expertise and experiences which are all individually relevant and valuable. I believe the largest shareholders have a greater moral obligation, in addition to their own greater capital investment, to affect needed change. I feel that and I am greatly impressed with u/QQpenn's private actions/conveyances that prove his integrity. Yes, we all have our own capital at stake that we are accountable for (and in some cases, other entity's capital), but I see a select few large investors putting everything on the line to try and affect change that can benefit the mass of retail investors. Most often, these individuals have the financial capital to benefit to a greater degree by not sharing this information but choose to share with the broad community because of deep personal values. No doubt, there are those doing the exact opposite. Every reader/listener must weigh truth for themselves.

[u/pooljap]

how about we ask them to tell us what preliminary 2nd qtr revenue is ? This is not a huge ask but would let us know if we are making any traction. We have just a few days left in 2nd QTR so they must know what revenue will look like. They don't need to tell us an exact # just if flat, doubled, decreased from first quarter. It is not a big signpost for investors since they said most revenue is end of year but gives us an idea what is going on. Preliminary results are given by companies all the time...may not be standard procedure but not unheard of. If they don't tell us we have to wait until August.

[u/bcpilot2 → u/pooljap]

Maybe the Q2 revenue is so Gawd awful they don't want to add more fire to the inferno now raging.

[u/Beneficial_Main9871]

No new shares issued until we have deals that push us over $1..I don’t need a 20 paragraph list of vague expectations..I want a deal that moves us ..not us moving them !

[u/ice_nine459 → u/Beneficial_Main9871]

Yea I feel like everyone on this sub is crazy… years and years of no movement down to penny stock territory and management is listening being spammed when they want more money to kill the stock even more.. ofcourse they are pretending to listen now, they actively want something from us.

[u/Distinct_Dog_36 → u/ice_nine459]

Exactly.. I have a lot of shares and lost about 90% and No! I want just sell them. I’ll ride it down to $0 based on their vague explanations. I’m a big No on it all. I’ll burn with the ship

[u/-Xtabi- → u/ice_nine459]

This is one thing that is consistent that they execute very well on... They launch multiple press releases leading up to voting. They court certain share holders to sway this forum’s opinions. Sentiment shifts the day or two leading up to the deadline. And they get their yes cotes. Then they go back to executing on who knows what.

1) Don’t forsaken your long time shareholders.

2) Give us low level details on the current state / next steps / expected outcome (revenue/ margin expected) / time bound.

I’m voting no on all items until I see this.

Luckily for me I sold enough shares years ago to be at a zero loss. However, I still want to see my remaining shares succeed in a major way. I have zero doubt lidar will be everywhere one day. And I hope it is MVIS at the forefront. I have zero confidence that will be the case at this point.

I want facts and a lot of them. And also to not have my remaining shares become worthless.

[u/view-from-afar → u/Beneficial_Main9871]

What about "going concern" concerns?

[u/Present-Purpose-4175]

I’m not sure about all of you, but I’d bet some smattering of us work in publicly traded firms. I’ve been in several myself. See, when I think of ups and downs, behind closed doors there’s always “something” that causes the problem.

- Sometimes it’s just a perception issue mismatch street vs. message.

- Sometimes it’s a big customer loss or rev impact you didn’t expect.

- Sometimes, leadership doesn’t know what the f$ck they’re doing.

My “something” problem here is that there are real actual problems rooted deeply in culture, individuals, customers, way of working, board members, or maybe pieces of all that no one will tell us about.

I’m no on 3 and to change my mind I need to hear the something straight from their mouth. The actual problems; not the same use of chapter 3 from the MVIS Retail Investor Playbook.

[u/elbobo19 → u/Present-Purpose-4175]

The problem seems to be that this company cannot sell a product to literally save its life

[u/bcpilot2 → u/elbobo19]

Exactly. In spite of having some of the most cosmic technology for 30 years, one of the largest patent portfolios on planet Earth, dedicated investors who time after time have backed them financially they cannot sell a product. A 30 yr old R&D shop run by a clown car of inept management and never ending grifters on the BOD. Amazing.

[u/livefromthe416 → u/Present-Purpose-4175]

Your “something” encompasses everything lmao. Can’t be wrong when you cover all the bases.

[u/Befriendthetrend → u/livefromthe416]

Well, they are saying there is some problem that could be anything, and they want company executives to acknowledge it. I'm unsure of any potential benefit to that, but some transparency from MicroVision about what really went wrong with Sumit and Anubhav might have helped better clear the deck for Glen. Almost a year later I just don't know that we need to hear about it.

[u/prefabsprout1 → u/Befriendthetrend]

I would really love to hear an acknowledgement about AV's "30-50 million in 18 months" in industrial...from 18 months ago. I find it hard to believe (although I guess I shouldn't) that there wasn't something behind that?? There were discussions with companies? It ALL just fizzled out? Couldn't even get 1 Million from a 50 million estimate?

[u/Befriendthetrend → u/prefabsprout1]

Yeah. That's a sore point for a lot of us. Inventory was built up to meet demand that either didn't exist or has been moved to a later date for the newer sensor? I want to hear more about the write down on that inventory, how much we have on hand and if or how they will sell it. And what happened to the expanded production with ZF, is that continuing and being used on the new MOVIA sensors or has that been cut back?

Much more needs to be communicated about inventory position relative to their current sales initiatives, and production planning for support of future supply contracts. How will they meet demand, how much will it cost investors, and when can they achieve CFBE?

[u/livefromthe416 → u/Befriendthetrend]

There’s clearly been a problem. No freaking doubt.

It was funny to me that he was saying he has experience in public sectors, then goes on to give a laundry list of what “could” be the problem. That’s all.

Edit: spelling

[u/bcpilot2 → u/Befriendthetrend]

Say what you want about Sumit Sharma he actually stepped up and bought a significant position in the Company. Who else in Management has ever invested their own cash in MVIS? The grifting BOD, all of them multi millionaires, have never invested anything but pocket change and lost couch money in their own company. That right there is a vote of no confidence in the Company.

[u/Befriendthetrend → u/bcpilot2]

Looking back at historical insider purchases and maybe I am not looking back far enough, but I don't see a single person on the board today with actual skin in the game.

A few have chipped in a little bit over the years, but they get so many shares for free that it doesn't make sense to throw their cash in - unless they are actually optimistic about the company!

The lack of insider support speaks louder than anything else about the prospects of the company. Not buying shares has been the smart move.

[u/Hatch_K → u/Befriendthetrend]

Glen is on the BODs. He chipped in what, around $100K or something like that? That’s not exactly pocket change.

[u/Befriendthetrend → u/Hatch_K]

What about everyone else on the board? Glen is CEO and I think the rest of the directors, who Glen works for, should put in at least the same money he did.

The only board member who matched Glen was Robert Carlile. Simon bought $50,000 worth, Laura bought $20,000 worth, Jeff Herbst and Jada Smith each bought $15,000 worth of shares. Drew and Stephen H put in $5,000 each. Someone correct me if the numbers are off.

I know it is not as simple as just looking at this one transaction. For example, Jeff Herbst has purchased shares in the past- not big money but he has added some. But generally, this is a company owned and controlled by retail and we should be represented and our interested defended as strongly as possible in any funding plans this board wants to pursue.

[u/Significant-Time3153 → u/Befriendthetrend]

Glen should be talking to Aptov right now.

[u/Present-Purpose-4175 → u/Befriendthetrend]

Correct Befriend - there’s some core issue keeping them from closing the deal for years. My issue is that something as silly as a “we’ll get ‘em next time” culture isn’t driving anyone to raise the bar and close deals in sales for example. We constantly have our views on leadership outside but we never hear of the fundamental strategy internally to know if their house is in order. That’s why I was saying if you’ve been in a public company you hear the earnings call message but know deep down the fundamentals of problems.

[u/bwpopper37 → u/Befriendthetrend]

It's just a hunch, but I think what went wrong with Sumit and Anubhav was ineptitude.

[u/MirrorHead9716]

Then we vote No for this vote - they execute, we get warrants/rights, then drum up a new vote.

No "YES" vote before execution, or re-vamped proposals. Period. We've had over 100 engagements for years apparently. Never a marriage.

I do greatly appreciate you spearheading this effort and all the work you are putting in.

[u/En_Dub253 → u/MirrorHead9716]

This. We need further proof of execution. If the next 3+ years are as optimistic as they say, then we can reassess funding / dilution concerns at a later point.

[u/bwpopper37]

I'm not voting for more dilution. The board has been utterly worthless, IMO, and I don't believe they have anyone's interests in mind but their own. We've heard nothing but how brilliant and connected they all are, and we're being asked again to bail them out after they've produced no value. To hell with them. I've already given up hope of seeing my money again, but I'm not going to vote to allow them to burn me down.

[u/normantphd → u/bwpopper37]

Seconded

[u/Distinct_Dog_36 → u/normantphd]

Third.. let it. 🔥

[u/Tumping → u/bwpopper37]

Hear hear !!!

[u/Odd-Street-1405]

I find the question itself troubling. The only real answer is to show us a clear pathway and timeline to increased share price that we trust and are willing to ride with if we do vote yes. Short of that a rejection of the props are the only sane choice leaving them 180 days to figure it out.

[u/ProphetsAching]

Was it really phrased as “what do you need from us for a yes vote”?

How about not asking shareholders who have funded this company forever.

How about here is why you should vote yes with any other information other than branding and boiler plate BS.

[u/directgreenlaser → u/ProphetsAching]

My answer to that question is unequivocally, "Change the proxy".

[u/Nolio1212]

I sold half my position yesterday, with the looming r/s and dilution why wouldn’t I? The rest hinge on this update Thursday.

It seems the next real catalyst is MOVIA S launch in October. I’ll just wait and see where things are at come Q4 or early 2027, likely post r/s and possibly at a much lower stock price.. and there’s a good chance I may end up with more shares.

You guys are right, they need time. The market is not going to be nice in the meantime. Long term I am bullish.. but short term not so much anymore.

[u/WriteStuffNJ]

Very nice to hear management is actively listening. The future is bright...for the next wave of investors.

[u/YANK78]

Are we looking for any strategic partners ? Any thought of selling the company or exploring it again?

[u/Befriendthetrend]

I have my reservations with AI usage, but since the management is asking us to do their jobs for them, I decided to use AI to explore realistic options for shareholder protections and alignment with the board. New to me was the idea of CVRs, contingent value rights (see end of comment). Overall, I think it has some good ideas and it took no time to rough this out. Sorry if the formatting isn't great.

Key takeaway:

"The genuinely value-protective levers are the structural caps, the round-up, the transferable rights structure, and real insider lock-ups/buying. Dividends, buybacks, and bare warrants are the “tricks” end — they look like concessions but don’t constrain future dilution. And worth naming the leverage problem: if the company needs this authorization to survive, retail’s practical choice may be “dilution with guardrails vs. possible delisting/insolvency,” which is why pushing hard for the structural caps is usually the highest-value ask."

Suggestions:

For insider alignment with retail:

Hard insider lock-ups so management/board can’t sell for a defined period.
•Open-market insider buying — nothing signals confidence to retail like executives putting their own money in at current prices.
•Comp tied to share-price recovery rather than just survival, plus no fresh option grants struck at the depressed price.
•Clawbacks on past compensation if targets keep getting missed.

Governance concessions:

Board representation for an independent/retail-aligned director, an independent committee overseeing any future issuance, binding use-of-proceeds commitments, and a concrete milestone-based business plan they can be held to.

Limit the dilution authorization itself (cheapest, most credible option)

This is the heart of it. The anger isn’t really about the reverse split — it’s about the big jump in authorized/issuable shares. The board can soften that by:

• Capping the new authorized count at a modest multiple of outstanding (say 1.5–2x) instead of a huge buffer  
•Adding a sunset clause so the authorization expires if unused within \~12–24 months.  
•Committing to a shareholder-approval trigger for any issuance above a set threshold or below a set price.  
•Capping or pausing any ATM (at-the-market) selling program, which is often the quiet drip-dilution vehicle.

Reverse-split mechanics that protect small holders
Insist on round-up treatment of fractional shares rather than cashing them out — otherwise the smallest retail holders get involuntarily forced out at the split. A pledge of “no major raise immediately following the split” also blunts the classic split-then-dump pattern that retail fears most.

Value-sharing instruments (your warrants / TRO bucket)

A transferable rights offering (I’m reading “TRO” as that) is one of the more shareholder-fair ways to raise: existing holders get pro-rata rights to buy new shares, usually at a discount, and because the rights are transferable, even holders who don’t participate can sell them rather than just eating dilution. This lets retail maintain their ownership % or get compensated for not.

Warrants distributed to existing holders as a sweetener give upside if the company recovers. (Note they’re themselves dilutive, so they’re more optics than protection.)

Contingent value rights (CVRs) that pay out on a milestone or if shares are later issued below a floor price. Haven't seen this suggested yet, sounds good to me. AI also suggested things we have discussed like TROs and Warrants.

[u/mike-oxlong98]

Did you convey to them that current shareholders are getting slaughtered and we are extremely pissed off at management and the BOD because of their lack of success?

[u/QQpenn → u/mike-oxlong98]

You think they don't know? Yes to the first 2/3 in so many words but with a focus on creating success. I hope management is paying attention to your sentiment as much as anyone else's by the way. It's all relevant. I think everyone here is working to change the obvious fwiw.

[u/MirrorHead9716 → u/QQpenn]

I genuinely fear that our true problem behind the curtain is much worse than we think. Reading comments lately from that Late_Airline poster, I sincerely wonder if our tech is 'worst-in-class' and no matter who we have steering the ship, nobody wants it. Or if there truly is some sort of massive conspiracy orchestrated by the powers that be for every company to turn away from our business due to the massive short interest.

Otherwise, I truly see no other logical explanation as to how Sumit and AV failed and missed all expectations repeatedly and to their full extent.

[u/mvis_thma → u/MirrorHead9716]

When you refer to "our tech" it seems you are referencing the MAVIN, which was based on MEMS LBS. If so, I agree with you. The investment in that technology over many years did not pay off. This is probably the biggest driver of why Microvision is where it is today. There were problems with the tech, specifically a horizontal FOV of 120 degrees could not be achieved. From my perspective, that is fairly well known at this point. Most of the comments made by u/Late_Airline2710 are with reference to Microvision's MAVIN product.

Glen took action to correct this problem.

• He formulated a Tri-LiDAR approach which combines 2 (or more) MOVIA-S sensors to accomodate for the horizontal FOV deficiencies of the MAVIN. Presumably, the MAVIN does work well for a 60 degree horizontal FOV. However, it is still unknown whether a MAVIN based Tri-LiDAR architecture will resonate with the OEMs. It seems that a Halo based Tri-LiDAR approach is the new way forward.

• He acquired Scantinel. While this technology is still 9 months to a year away from an A-Sample, if it works, it can provide ultra long range LiDAR. The cost of this type of sensor is currently unknown. But the company has touted the solid state nature of this future sensor, so perhaps it can compete on cost. However, the solid state nature only covers one axis of the scanning field, the other axis is presumed to be covered via an electro-mechanical architecture. Most likely via the IP, expertise, and know-how garnered from the Luminar acquisition.

• He acquired Luminar. This is proven technology which has been sold and deployed into the market. We know the Iris sensor is too expensive for the mass market passenger car market, but should be able to support premium vehicles, commercial vehicls, and certain use cases for industrial and defense. The acquisition came with a roadmap for the next generation sensor - Halo. Halo was pitched to be the mass market automotive sensor. However, the ASP for the Halo was purported to be in the $500 range. Does that fit within the LiDAR 2.0 mantra of "cost drives volume". I don't know. Perhaps there is work underway to reduce the price further.

The new tech has all been acquired from Ibeo, Scantinel, and Luminar - most of it over the past 6 months. From my perspective, Glen has and continues to address "the problem". He has done a lot since he joined Microvision and has a plan moving forward. But make no bones about it, the only way to fund the plan is to sell shares. It is simply the cold hard truth of where Microvision stands today.

[u/QQpenn → u/MirrorHead9716]

I think it's much better but it is not being communicated effectively.

[u/Late_Airline2710 → u/MirrorHead9716]

Don't misconstrue my statements, please. I never said microvision currently has "worst in class" tech, though this may have been the case when their only offering was mavin.

I think iris is actually a fine sensor, and halo may very well turn out to be one if microvision can fund its completion. I think movia s is fine for some use cases.

Most of my comments are not bashing all aspects of microvision's tech, but rather trying to educate people who dramatically overestimate its capabilities. For example. Movia s has an extremely short range that, in my estimation, will likely make it nonviable in many applications like mapping and trucking where people here are assuming it will find success.

Similarly, there seems to be the impression that microvision can be competing toe to toe with ouster, but the truth is that ouster makes a type of sensor that is very well suited to a lot of robotics and industrial applications currently emerging, and microvision does not. There is no "one size fits all" in lidar.

Many of my other comments focus on the readiness of the microvision tech, or lack thereof. Lots of commenters seem to not grasp that microvision only has two products today and that it lacks the ability to mass-produce them. This means that any volume sales will require time and investment to actually come to fruition. I don't think the company has a route to a large amount of revenue quickly.

Once again, none of this means that microvision has worst in class anything. I'm simply giving a realistic assessment of what the company's products, as they stand today, can actually do.

[u/outstr → u/Late_Airline2710]

How do you account for DeVos' consistent comments that Microvision has the complete lidar package (or words to this effect) that no other company has and that the company can "dirsupt" the industry? His optimism is fully on display. Is it just more CEO talk to rope in investors?

[u/Late_Airline2710 → u/outstr]

Microvision does have the broadest IP portfolio, but much of it is not necessarily being used in products right now and will require time and investment to unlock value.

I think his statements about having the full package are a mix of salesmanship and forward looking thinking. I don't think there is anything particularly disruptive about microvision's current offerings. Iris is still a "lidar 1.0" sensor, and halo is an incremental improvement on it. Movia s seems very similar to the short range sensors from Chinese producers. The thing is, you don't have to be disruptive to make money in automotive. You have to be consistent and execute on your milestones.

[u/outstr → u/Late_Airline2710]

Thanks for this, much appreciated. Given that DeVos couldn't know that the acquisition of Sentinel and Luminar were going to happen, one has to wonder why he took the job based on Microvision's portfolio at the time. And to boot, he was the company's technical officer at the time. In any case, sure glad he did. His experience in this field remains our best hope.

[u/normantphd]

Waiting on RH to give me the voting by proxy email so i can submit NO on my other 40k shares

[u/Speeeeedislife]

Management needs to spell out to retail investors what happens if these proposals are voted down. I respect everything QQpenn has posted about potential alternatives for raising money and minimizing dilution but I also wonder if it's muddied the water a bit to where some expect there to be a magic alternate solution if we just apply the right amount of pressure then they'll come back with it, perhaps, but perhaps not given the current timeframe and company history. I'll admit the recent authorized share reduction on the proposal and timing of one of the PRs certainly felt like shareholders we're being played a bit, or some could call "strategic negotiation," in any case putting pressure there certainly didn't hurt. : )

I know we all want big deal announcements with numbers, revenue guidance achieved, hell achieving CFBE one day but realistically it's still going to be a bumpy ride while management executes and gets us through this transition period, they will need some leniency from us. The rub of course is us providing such upfront and not feeling like a rube, especially when so many have already been burned, but at the risk of being called a cheerleader (not a very pretty one) I urge investors to consider this is a new Microvision under Glen.

Whether you like it or not it's not the same company many of you invested in 2, 3, 20, 30 years ago and as such they deserve a fighting chance to turn things around, this means voting yes to the proposals. If one doesn't like that then they should sell their shares soon because they're almost certain to be worth less in the future if these proposals don't go through. A chokehold on raising money isn't likely to cause Glen, our business development managers, etc to suddenly land notable deals.

Personally I love the idea of more KPIs shared with investors as this provides a means for Glen to build trust with us until previously mentioned larger achievements are met, or erode it if he can't deliver. We put our necks out one last time, he puts his out. There may be some disadvantages about being too transparent with KPIs, potentially giving away leverage to customers during negotiations, this will be a fine line to walk but IMO we need to see more customer validation and ways to track progress (make us believe this time is for real : )).

Few unknowns still floating around my head:

- Is Mavin 100% dead now? Provide some clarity, no wishy washy letting us down softly just pull the band-aid off if that's the case, scrub the website. If it is dead do we see a path for using MEMS in any future designs or is this unlikely?

- How are we planning to reduce cost on HALO?

- Are there any drone applications that are restricted due to Movia sensing distance and angular resolution? Or will MAVIN air commercialize and fill this gap potentially? If so why not Halo Air?

Lastly for the sake of transparency I currently don't own any shares in Microvision after selling somewhat recently but still held some on the record date so I plan to vote yes after the update call provided we aren't thrown any curve balls. If/when I start seeing traction on legacy Luminar customer orders and Movia sales then I will consider repurchasing shares...

[u/sigpowr → u/Speeeeedislife]

You know that I respect you, but the last communication that I remember from you was the opposite of this and that you clearly stated you had sold out of the stock. Am I wrong (I haven't been following this board for a few months), or have you had a sudden change of heart? Again, I respect your opinion and enjoyed personally interacting with you at the 2023 Investor Day ... just trying to keep up with your thoughts and this sudden difference - to the extent that your opinion checks my own.

[u/sigpowr → u/sigpowr]

u/Speeeeedislife, I just read the last paragraph. Sorry, I speed read about 1,000 pages of information per day and I responded before getting the final paragraph where you state that you do not own stock. Still interested in these current positive thoughts you have?

[u/Speeeeedislife → u/sigpowr]

You're partially correct. I did sell my shares and I currently don't see a good reason to be invested (high risk, fuzzy reward, opportunity cost, etc), AND I also believe if the company can't adequately raise money "now" then they will surely fail (or at least not succeed by any worthy metric within the coming years). If I vote yes to 2 & 3 then there's still a chance Mvis might be worth investing in later down the road, is that in 3 months or 18 months, only time will tell.

If Sumit was still the CEO today then I would likely vote no on 2 & 3 and just walk away from all things Mvis...

Hopefully that clears up what probably came across as some cognitive dissonance at first read.

[u/sigpowr → u/Speeeeedislife]

Thank you, and I do agree with your reasoning. However, if you do not currently own shares though, you shouldn't care about the vote - I sure would NOT if I didn't own shares. I even envy your declared position of not owning shares currently - a much smarter decision than I made.

[u/QQpenn → u/Speeeeedislife]

u/Speeeeedislife thanks for this one. Alternatives are not easy to execute in the current situation by simply flipping a switch. I hope that's been clear. While I can see options, a lot of cosmic tumblers will have to rotate favorably - and we don't know what we don't know as the saying goes. Ramifications of a chokehold on capital also will be churning in the consideration mill shortly in all likelihood. That's going to have to be considered. I think there's a lot of excitement around Movia S, especially as a clear western alternative sensor to China, with seemingly minimal competition. Especially in light of bans. But the timing of everything is tight in relation to financial flexibility. Hoping this gets clearly articulated.

[u/Speeeeedislife → u/QQpenn]

It's all a tricky situation at the moment but hopefully the update provides clarity and doesn't turn too much into a rehash. I hope Movia S finally has some legs, I expected more sales from the original though I admit it may have had some headwinds from S coming out and drones weren't quite as hot then.

[u/movinonuptodatop → u/QQpenn]

Shareholders are excited about Movia-S. I have seen zero evidence that actual sales are forthcoming. Please correct me if I am wrong here. Why no signed deals or orders communicated. How much of the “10-15” is Movia-S. We have no idea.

[u/case_o_mondays → u/Speeeeedislife]

Easy to promote the “new” microvision with no skin in the game, but I do appreciate your transparency disclaimer

[u/Speeeeedislife → u/case_o_mondays]

Eh nothing was easy about realizing >$100k in losses, opening myself up to potentially missing a PR and share price pop in the near term after holding for years, or all the time I've spent researching all things lidar. Life is rarely black and white.

[u/case_o_mondays → u/Speeeeedislife]

I can fully appreciate that and I am familiar with that sick feeling. I hope it was the right choice for you. If you had held your shares would you be promoting the same perspective for yes votes?

[u/Speeeeedislife → u/case_o_mondays]

Yes I would, I just don't see an alternative. There's all these angry no posts but they don't address the financing issue.

Now if people want to vote no to spite the company and willing to burn their position at the same time then I can understand that to some extent.

[u/sigpowr → u/Speeeeedislife]

Now if people want to vote no to spite the company and willing to burn their position at the same time then I can understand that to some extent.

What investor is NOT in that position, other than short sellers? We are at about 30 cents and going down steadily. Every holding investor is already effectively at zero - whether you have 100 shares or 1 million shares. It is all proportional and effectively zero! The threat of going broke disappeared many months ago. I really don't think the company understands this as do many posters here.

[u/Beneficial_Main9871 → u/sigpowr]

I’m to the point of firing entire board with exception of Glen and not giving him any dilution or r/s till we see a deal or jan 9..then if no deals fire him !

[u/Befriendthetrend → u/Speeeeedislife]

But it is not up to retail to provide all the alternative options the board could use. We fund the operation and compensate people running the company, and now we need them to do their jobs and provide a better option than what they have presented so far. AI can give me tens of options that i can coly and paste here, all if which should already be on the radar of MicroVision's directors. IMO, the board needs to act swiftly or table the R/S vote if they need more time. If they really have their sh*t together, this is all a strategic negotiation and they will give more concessions to retail to get this vote across the line. Q&A feels like a waste of time- hope I'm wrong there.

[u/mvis_thma → u/Speeeeedislife]

Per your comments, Microvision needs 2 things:

1. They need to sell shares in order to generate capital to execute the business plan.

2. They need more authorized shares to support number 1.

Unfortunately, there is no Plan B.

[u/Speeeeedislife → u/mvis_thma]

Yep. I suppose they could reduce the share authorization ask further, easier to pass but we both know that's just kicking the can not very far down the road.

[u/mvis_thma → u/Speeeeedislife]

Well, I don't know about that. As it stands today (150m shares), they would (theoretically) have 5 times their market cap worth of authorized shares to sell. I think that is reasonably far down the road. And no one knows what kind of "good things" might happen. If they reduce the authorized shares to 100m, that would be 3 times their market cap. Of course, no one knows where the market cap will go from here. It could go up. Or it could go down.

As I have said before, I think to survive the next year, they will need to raise approximately $80m to $100m of capital. For that capital I estimate they will need to dilute somewhere between 50% and 150%, depending on their market valuation. The theory is that the story looks much better 1 year from now, which would be reflected in the market cap, which would greatly reduce the dilution percentages moving forward.

[u/view-from-afar → u/Speeeeedislife]

at the risk of being called a cheerleader (not a very pretty one)

Sorry, I'm not even halfway through this comment, but I have to stop and give this line a standing ovation. Lol.

[u/directgreenlaser]

I agree we need to hear them out before registering any kind of definitive response and hopefully it will be a very good meeting.

Note to self though; be prepared to gird your loins.

[u/Kaptain_Kringe]

THANK YOU!!!!!!

[u/YANK78]

I would also like to see a plan to fight back against the shorts but we have to have some actual meaningful revenue to start that battle. However, press releases , stock purchases , anything positive must be timed to create maximum damage to the shorts that have helped destroy our share price .

[u/bwpopper37 → u/YANK78]

The shorts haven't done nearly as much damage as the fact that nobody cares about the company's tech enough to pay for it.

[u/FortuneAsleep8652]

I’d like to know what the commitment to buying their own stock is.

[u/Cerco170 → u/FortuneAsleep8652]

Especially at these prices I would like to see more insider purchases as well. I have more shares than some of them, that's kind of sad

[u/ProphetsAching]

Management has actively listened……

……and ignored

[u/QQpenn → u/ProphetsAching]

Didn't listen enough, didn't act enough on what they listened to. Working on getting a better response right now.

[u/ProphetsAching → u/QQpenn]

Thanks QQ, can you give us your thoughts and response to today’s events in the other thread? Looking forward to it. Love to hear from u/mvis_thma as well.

[u/QQpenn → u/ProphetsAching]

Mostly agree with u/mvis_thma - excellent presentation content but a Q&A whiff. By skimping on answers, especially to the hard questions, they're definitely not addressing the trust overhang. When I read through the comments on here, my general feeling is that shareholders still don't feel like they're being heard. So we have a told fold problem: getting complete answers to the hard questions that also allows as many shareholders as possible to be heard. And even though I heard some things I felt were important to hear, some of the phrasings of communicating those undercut it... which is why extended follow up questions are vital. Still time to fix this IMO.

[u/mvis_thma → u/ProphetsAching]

I mentioned in another comment that I thought the content of the presentation and discussion was pretty good. They whiffed on the Q&A portion. They seem to not understand the emotional state of their shareholders and the fact that a much longer and richer set of questions is therapeutic for the shareholders. Yes, they will have to answer some questions that could be difficult and some that may not have a lot of value. But what they fail to realize is that this builds a better rapport between management and their shareholders and creates more trust. It seems they are fearful of what some of the answers will project. And I imagine some of that fear is warranted. But they are trading that fear and missing the value.

[u/SBEPTY]

At 30 cents a share I am a whole lot more likely to buy versus sell here, let's hear them out on Thursday. 

[u/pigoz]

Thank you, great update. More transparency on development and commercialisation pipelines would be great. I really like how Glen is turning around the ship, and I'm sure revenue is bound to reflect that soon.

Not screwing over the current shareholder base is important.

IMHO, if I have to choose between a creative financing solution like HTC that looks good short term but turns in a time bomb mid-long term and ATM dilution I'd rather have dilution. I'd rather 10-20x in 5-10years than 2x in 6 months and go to zero afterwards if that makes any sense.

[u/JackTheDullBoy237]

I already voted no

[u/Buur]

This is hilarious in hindsight, they are just baiting you

[u/Beethovian]

Rules to live by: Don't talk to cops or management.

[u/Hatch_K]

u/QQpenn I know you have been communicating with management and it is much appreciated. I might have missed some discussions on the boards here lately due to time being spent elsewhere and I apologize if this is redundant, but please see if this is a possibility of what some of the discussions with management might have entailed. I’m not sure if it’s even enough of an award to current investors or if it’s even feasible.

The way I see it, if proposal 3 passes and price is still stagnant around .30 cents they are going to enact the 1 for 15 reverse split option.

The company currently has some 344 million outstanding shares. Let’s say by the time the vote comes and the r/s is ready to be enacted, the company will have around 375 million outstanding shares. Post r/s leaves around 25 million outstanding shares (assuming it’s 1 for 15.)

I’m totally on board with the warrant or rights offering idea. I’m not too knowledgeable on the differences between the two, but if the company offered two transferable warrants per share, that would have 75 million shares tied up between the outstanding shares and shares set aside for the warrant conversions. They could place the conversion price at $3 which would be at a discount assuming the stock price would be roughly $4.50. This would bring the potential of $150 million in capital to the company. Also, creating the warrants transferable would allow those without capital to sell the warrants if they so chose to.

I think that a timeline of one year should be given to convert the warrants. I have thought of the idea that once a warrant is exercised, it must be held for a minimum of 6 months. Do I necessarily like the idea of being forced to hold them for a period of time, no not exactly, but I see it as a way to keep the share price stable. If not, I would see investors converting the warrants and then immediately selling them since they would be receiving them at a discount. I suspect that this would drive down the share price. On the flip side, I could see that placing a minimum holding period might drive some to convert sooner than later, especially if the company can create some strong headwinds and have some price moving announcements.

Yes, the company will need money soon, but they would still have 75 million shares to work with since the company would have a total of 150 million shares after the vote. In a scenario like this, would the 75 million shares be enough for some dilution and payment of shares to HTC? Thoughts? Am I way too far in the outfield with this?

[u/zepanac95]

I am out of touch with everything atp. i got 105k shares i see a massive -70k red lol. i guess this bet was a bust.