A few points.
Scoffing at a suggestion of potential revenue is one thing, but I've seen many listed companies talk in terms of future revenue and market share. It's how you make your statements. Which should indeed be qualified. Such companies who do this are still listed and doing far better than ADO.
Secondly Elon Musk can expect very close scrutiny from regulators just arising from the size of the company. A lot goes on in the ASX in small caps and micro caps that isn't exactly kosher. ASIC has very limited resources and tends to focus on companies that it can use as an example. These tend to be large caps.
I'd suggest that one reason that ADO hasn't been brought under the microscope from litigation in any form, could be that remaining shareholders don't want to kill off the remaining chances of the company finally (despite arguably incompetence at best), actually succeeding. Certainly I've given the entire situation plenty of thought and the one reliable element has been Joe Maeji and the science.
Aware of their past, the possibility that management is overcompensating with coyness verging on obscurity should at least be considered.
Finally, it's well established that there has been a remarkable intolerance in discussion in here for a variety of views. It's been considered necessary to attack individuals on a personal level. I find this confounding and fascinating at the same time.
Aware that it's not always possible to explore all possibilities exhaustively for a range of reasons I do find that asking questions is at least one possibility. I'm sure that you aren't suggesting that because this is a speculative stock, a variety of possibilities should be entirely closed from discussion. DYOR is always at the background, after all. That includes at least thinking about the least palatable of considerations.
