No apology needed, thank you, as I fully disagree. Price sparked...

No apology needed, thank you, as I fully disagree.

Price sparked 4 times within weeks and was held low at the same time of each day of the respective ann, making sure no chart momentum was developing.

The game is a deal at this price, positioning of somebody who might come on board, and why wouldn't they?
A partner would want voting power and ownership to some extent, that is what unfolding here.
And this I derive from the many times I was at the negotiating table myself often enough to be able to see the signs.
Attempting to save as much ownership and control as possible while not being in the favourable financial position being strong armed by the global.

You kill momentum often enough with a sheer endless supply of shares ( as you know a deal is coming ) and market will give up attempting to run. That's all.
Market can read the writing on the wall that globals are lurking and we are only weeks away from announcements.
But deeper pockets have their own agenda.
If you truly have no experience in that matter, what are you doing in a research stock on the verge to commercialisation, as this is the corner piece of investing in such stocks to be able to read the moment when that transition happens?

Those negotiations do not start with the positive news hitting market, the outcome of collaborator 1 testing was already anticipated by our last internal update, hence given by management to give shareholders a taste what is to be expected, they look after those researched and long term invested.
The larger shareholder got the message, the rest of the market might play the fact only game, at their own peril, IMO>

I, for one, appreciate that management shared those developments as this de-risked the investment dramatically from my view.