It protects the rest of the market from manipulation. I think it's what baba referred to as being more simple than what I'm over thinking. It would boil down to the quality of the available financial funds at the time because it's just business.

In the best interest of POET the entire amendment would be rather dispensible? If we are thinking further dilution and such. I mean in comparison to the financing deal that just closed... what sense would it make to follow through with a previous warrant ammendment? The best interest of ALL shareholders is not dilution.

This confuses me when I try and make sense of Kevin Barnes interview where he states that dilution is baked in or factored in somehow. Am I missing something here? Or is that just an interesting angle to view from a revenue perspective?