@Stockfella - you are quite correct, their monetization model is...

@Stockfella - you are quite correct, their monetization model is flawed. But that aside for a moment, my analysis is technology and market agnostic. I look at capital structure and management, and the biggest flaw is as follows: 1) Top heavy compensation (board, CEO, Executives) in relation to Development and in relation to revenues and assets and how that contributes to cash burn 2) Value of the asset ,i.e. overvalued 3) % of shares floated versus held under control of management, in particular % held by CEO.  Generally, if a company is held as tightly as this and it is experiencing cashflow problems (as is the case), then it is susceptible to internal "agency" issues. If the company were to have higher revenues and profit this would not be the case, the CEO would be in an entirely different mindset and situation, but right now, that is not the case. The announcements' pattern is a good indication of the internal issues which could affect this company. Let's be quite clear, this is a very fragile company with good potential, but the fragility is why the market has responded thus far, and why the company does not have institutional capital behind it. The deal flow could be better also, they are in fact chasing small fry in a deep sea, and that could be a reflection of the board and executives using a shot gun approach to marketing, targeting low hanging fruit instead of putting focus on the niche segments they need to attack.