What a shocker if RVX blows by another company suggested timeline. Sure would be nice if RVX business execs could start being right as much as they've been wrong in the past!  Question Fuzz, what do you mean by "gaining a wee bit of understanding"?

Telepanel I would agree that DM has found money from a variety of sources but it has been costly from a dilution perspective, in my opinion because the company has been run so poorly for so long.  To me any money the company raises is solely because of the quality of the science.   Only my opinion but from poor communication, to continually being barely solvent, to being extraordinarily slow at accomplishing anything, to letting opportunities seemingly slip away such as progressing with partnerships, other "clinic ready compounds", AIDS and Covid, there is very little if anything this company does well from a business perspective. I think poor business management is likely the reason the company can not, despite world class science, maintain any first rate analyst coverage. A reputable analyst puts their reputation on the line with each company they recommend and even when the science is great the business has to be at least somewhat in order. I truly hope something comes along to show me my opinion is dead wrong but I'm not holding my breath. As I've said before I think there is still a lot of upside to the value of the science so that is why I'm still here. 

Given what I have just said I for one find it absolutely shocking (sort of) to find in the latest information circular that the BoD with a compensation consultant found that RVX NEOs were underpaid. This was the reason for the extra RSUs awarded to these senior execs. DM made just over $2M in total compensation and our Senior VP of business development made just north of $800k in total compensation for fy2020. In the compensation discussion it states that compensation needs to be competitive in order to "attract and retain" senior executive talent.  In my opinion not working so far on the talent front!

10-41, I have generally voted against most of the directors (Roger Newton and Arthur Higgins being very notable exceptions). Those votes and 3 bucks generally gets me a cup of coffee - actually come to think of it I get a free cup of coffee and cookie when I've shown up to the AGM!  I think the $ raise with the option to back out is a good idea. As usual we may need the money. 

RVXOT if I could I would give you 100 thumbs up for your post regarding answering questions. In my opinion if management had consistently tried a little harder to answer questions/communicated with more regularity and accuracy it might have spurred more interest in the RVX story and perhaps made financings much less costly over time.  Right now I think most new investors are going to look at the science and be intrigued but will likely not put their money in until they can see a clear financial/corporate path forward.

All just my opinion