AusCann has nothing but licenses (and many other competitors now...

AusCann has nothing but licenses (and many other competitors now also have the licenses). Think about cooking oils from a supermarket. We have many brands but they are just cooking oils. The same thing can be said about cannabis oils. We can have many brands but the oils are pretty much the same. The oils are not processed into other chemicals in any way. So, why AusCann is special in any way? They claim that they are special because of their proprietary capsules which they don't make. They are going to outsource to PCI to make. Do people buy brand A cooking oils over others because the bottles look nicer or advertised with a "magical" property of keeping the oils from degradation? Without real products and being subjected to independent testing, how can any one believe that AusCann actually has the "magical" capsule and it actually preserves the cannabis oils better? 

No one will believe this until (1) The product is available (2) It is tested by an independent party to validate the claim of stability. The idea is hard to sell when no company in the world has been able to produce hard capsules that can preserve the oils for a long period of time in room temperature. Some did believe the hype and drove the share price up. Now people want evidence. With all this share price falling and dumping, the company is not coming out with any news about the progress of getting PCI to manufacture the capsules. It looks like there is no design at the first place. They are still trying to come up with the capsule design. Looking at the fact that AusCann outsourced everything, I guess they are outsourcing the design too. And they cannot get on with production because the other party cannot come up with the design. I think the only way to partly save AusCann is to import the oil, stuff them in capsules just like fish oil capsules and accept that they are not "magical" as claimed.

The resignation of Elaine was dubious as it happened BEFORE a product was made. And the reason for it was to find a CEO with experience in sales and marketing. If you do not have a product, why would you want a CEO with sales and marketing experience? BTW, the terms of employment for the new CEO state that either party can terminate the role with  6 months notice. I wonder if the new CEO finds out that it was a hoax, he would expose it as resign quickly rather than ending his career with AusCann.

I think it will be exceedingly dangerous if the share price just grinds lower week by week and lose all speculative nature. We won't even get a strong dead cat bounce for the retail investors to attempt to get out.