I agree that having substantial individual public shareholders - aka "strong hands" - committed to sustaining and advancing the company would be welcome news.

Around twenty percent of the company is held by insiders.  We can presume them to be "strong," but how about the rest?

There seem to be no institutional holders of consequence, so there are no shareholders in that category to be counted as "strong hands."

Without evidence to the contrary, I think we are stuck with speculation and hearsay about other "strong hands," are we not?  And, what makes them strong as opposed to some who may be feeling trapped into a continued holding under any circumstance?

Dunno, just asking.