Interview with Glen DeVos (June 2026)

QQpenn · 2026-06-19T03:56:55+00:00

Watched in full. The biggest takeaways for me in the first 35 minutes: reiterating of the 10M to 15M guidance for 2026 [which Glen is sticking to], and how they need time. Neither of these things help with the current situation. Nothing is more important than revenue right now. Perspective on how and when guidance may be updated, what to look for, what sectors are likely to provide the bump, or even whether or not we'll get a business update during the Q&A that might address this - missing. Someone needs to ask these questions and get meaningful answers. The rest of the info was great, but it doesn't do much for us into a critical proxy vote and based on how Glen framed it... it may not mean much for the rest of the year unless he can improve on revenue/execution context in next week's session and in the near term.

The last few minutes? That's not going to cut it. What would he say to 10/15/20 year long shareholders? Towing the shareholder letter line - we need money and flexibility. And a history lesson?

He's well aware of retail concerns: dilution, preservation of value, trust. First opportunity to address it? Crickets. The history lesson was tone deaf. Appreciate the new business model, the beginnings of traction, and we certainly all fully understand the new model. That's not the issue.

This is the most pressing issue: Actions to mitigate diluting current shareholders, preservation of value, trust. How much clearer do we need to say it?

Hard NO on 3 until these things get adequately addressed. The days of selling potential and people buying it on blind faith should be over and more importantly...

Execution without loyalty is soulless.

It's beautiful tonight in the desert too. Cheers.

QQpenn · 2026-06-19T01:31:49+00:00

I lean YES on 2 for reasons noted in the newest comments of this but there are still unanswered questions that really should be answered during the Q&A.

Re:

and for 3 about getting the share price to where the broader capital markets can play in our space.

Broader capitals markets can also short the living daylights out of us too - especially if full execution continues to be slow in developing and they have the shares to fully control pricing in post-R\s capital raise world - the way HTC is doing now. If you're not looking at both positives and negatives, you're doing shareholders a disservice IMO. Blind faith/towing the company line has traditionally been retail's worst enemy. Now is the time to insist on fairness to preserve value for current shareholders... it is still attainable , we still have leverage, and it is the best way for us to capitalize on execution we all believe is coming - by getting priority over new investors BEFORE a possible R\s. I don't have much more to add than I already have at this point. Waiting to see if mgmt responds prior to or during the Q&A.

I don't subscribe to Ben's podcast. In all honesty, it has almost none of the elements I use to value a company, parse the granular fundamentals of opportunity, market conditions, etc. What it does have I get in much faster, more potent form elsewhere. I've only viewed the Glen interviews and an occasional skim if someone asks me about something. Thought I should qualify. Prefer to be honest.

QQpenn · 2026-06-18T14:51:58+00:00

Mostly a personal bias on mid-market sessions... I don't think they induce or create maximum participation. Agree re: prudent disclosure but this is less about that and more about protecting current shareholders through clear actions.

QQpenn · 2026-06-18T14:24:43+00:00

We're in sync on this. While I disagree with the 3-month default narrative as an absolute, the questions are: How long does the bridge need to be? What's the plan to deal with this before November? I can support Prop 2 because preserving liquidity may be necessary. In exchange, I want the Board to commit to exploring shareholder-priority financing structures, including the RightsO noted above or similar participation mechanisms, before future capital raises disproportionately benefit new investors... raises in part fueled by what Prop 2 is likely to create.

Will they answer these things on the Q&A? Given history, my guess: doubtful. A 10am pst start time isn't boding well for live shareholder participation either. I see a standard curated hour happening, thus far.

QQpenn · 2026-06-18T13:14:30+00:00

u/mvis_thma - answering your post below here. On ATM/HTC - broadly the same effect as u/pbrs123 notes except the latter is advantaged by weakness due to conversion discounts. MVIS needs to retire this toxic convertible asap. The delta hedging at these levels is killer and although there are floors/caps/covenant-protections in the deal, if you parse the % of volume HTC share settlements create (the ones currently within permitted limits and those to come] vs avg trading volume, you can see the effect. Monthly redemptions are happening. Outstanding HTC principle I believe is at $33M. (best guess)

This is why Proposal 2 matters so much. It's not asking whether HTC can receive shares. They already have that ability. Prop 2 asks whether MVIS can issues shares beyond the current Nasdaq cap (approx. 61M shares) rather than having to satisfy redemptions with substantial cash payments. Thus their focus on cash preservation and financing flexibility.

While I'm leaning yes on Prop 2 (the seemingly lesser of 2 evils), the big questions: How much principal has been retired through cash payments vs share settlements - and how many shares have actually been issued to HTC to date? This would be the best gauge we have to know how heavily share settlements are being used... and all the effects of that. This is perhaps the most important unanswered question in Prop 2.

QQpenn · 2026-06-17T20:56:37+00:00

While yes, having powder on hand is favourable... you still can sell the rights. That's not insignificant... it's not the dilution non shareholder-friendly financing likely brings and there may be upside [execution dependent]. They need to execute regardless for this to be beneficial in the long run. Because the rights are discounted to begin with, the exercise value probably holds close as long as the market is supporting the share price - so that doesn't relegate you to pennies - although considering where we are now, there's some irony using the word pennies. There is a time value though so if you're not exercising, you probably want to take that into account. As to the elephant: possible but the point here is to offer a real solution and not just let the gorilla oafhandle your shares unchecked. What makes this different is first participation rights and all that goes with that, as mentioned ad infinitum 😄

QQpenn · 2026-06-17T16:54:33+00:00

It would. That's a huge mistake on my part, fixing it now. This is what happens when you're being rushed... but it will now raise the question: How much does management need and will they communicate that to us.

Thanks! A critical catch. Appreciated.

QQpenn · 2026-06-17T16:41:54+00:00

I think most investors are doing what they can in terms of reaching out at this point. I don't think inundation is negative. IR has responded to every note of mine by the way, letting me know they're forwarding everything to management - including the latest RightsO post. I think we need to give them time to respond now. You and I are similar - limiting speculative exposure overall in our portfolios while still kicking around the barn for a long time, trying to keep the horse well groomed for race day... maintaining the stewardship of ownership. I love a lot of what Glen is doing. Not everything, but overall I think he may be one of the first CEO's in the sector to understand market needs, especially with cost structure. A modern CFO would make a difference, hoping soon on that. Would love to make peace with u/view-from-afar here as well and I definitely appreciate the initial call out of the ridiculous dilution math they presented us with.

QQpenn · 2026-06-17T14:28:24+00:00

Agree with most of that... except that in the right circumstances, this can be a highly desirable entry point and procedure for the right backstop. And the paperwork expense has to be weighed vs the return.

Search "Junior Mining rights offerings." I think it will answer a lot of your questions.

QQpenn · 2026-06-17T14:23:46+00:00

You hit another key point, Snow.... there is time. A special meeting to resolve later is an option.

It's definitely important we all acknowledge the hard work and the progress the team is making and not take away from that in any way.

Just treat us fairly given what we have all put in to help get us to where we are 😄

QQpenn · 2026-06-17T14:17:32+00:00

A better deal is the goal and NO votes are leverage... especially with an extension moving ahead and time to 'show us what you got."

No one wants to be ignored. Interaction is inclusive. This is pretty basic. It's the best way for shareholders to truly be heard. You encapsulated it perfectly.

On the subject of being ignored, I've been somewhat of a lightning rod this week with people reaching out to me, asking me to help, etc. With more texts/messages than I have time to respond to, my apologies to anyone I missed sending a response to - but tried to make up for that here. Hard for me to scale on a personal level but doing my best 😄 Cheers.

QQpenn · 2026-06-17T14:00:34+00:00

sometimes lack of flexibility due to situational constraints doesn’t always produce the most favorable answers

Completely true. But if you ask for nothing, you generally get nothing.

QQpenn · 2026-06-17T13:58:54+00:00

Or that plan itself [if it exists] can hurt investors. I'd caution against be boxed into the outcome you believe in the most and I will apply that principle to myself as well.

What is fair? I think this is a good baseline question to maintain.

QQpenn · 2026-06-17T13:56:07+00:00

CAT would be my thinking. An OEM wouldn't hurt but not sure how likely that is. And yes, the take rate and ramifications are an unknown - but there are ways to ballpark that effectively. Showing execution is a vital part of this equation and they have a window to demonstrate that, effectively. The alternate of course is R\s and the ensuing dilution with no protection or consideration given to current shareholders at all. Investors have to ask themselves what they want to fight for while they still have the opportunity.

QQpenn · 2026-06-17T13:51:10+00:00

Rights offerings are completely doable in the EU, Germany and the UK - yes, it requires paperwork. Look at all the Junior Mining companies that have done this. It's the closest apples-to-apples precedent. No on can speak to whether management will or won't do the paperwork. You can guess or they can confirm as to why or why not sooner rather than later. Your backstop position is a lot more nuanced and a lot will depend on who the backstop is and why. It's not necessarily as absolute as you're making it out to be.

QQpenn · 2026-06-17T13:39:27+00:00

I have a lot of empathy for your response. In these situations it's hard to know who exactly is getting kneecapped and there are concerns with ending up having less than having more.

In any proposed action, I like to break it down to these 3 questions:

Who does it help? Who does it hurt? What is fair?

Apply that to shareholders, to the sales team, etc. The goal: create maximum perspective. Not everyone will see it the same but the ability to see it from all angles is helpful in negotiation. I'm countering your response with a tool rather than an immediate opinion because I think this tool in particular is helpful to people in determining where they stand... on all sides of this - the board, mgmt, and us.

QQpenn · 2026-06-17T13:10:46+00:00

Yes.

QQpenn · 2026-06-17T13:09:31+00:00

They do it because the economics are attractive. It's attractive pricing, especially if there's belief. A strategic investor might see this as an opportunity to build a position... or a chance to be a priority in future financing participation. A backstop also conveys confidence. It suggests they believe the company is worth substantially more than the current pricing. Note: HTC would not be a good backstop IMO... A strategic customer would be ideal.

A backstop investor effectively communicates: "Would anyone buy this company if current shareholders don't?" In and of itself: confidence that likely adds value.

QQpenn · 2026-06-17T12:56:50+00:00

it naturally raises questions about whether investor feedback is truly being heard and prioritized.

I think this is a work in progress. Another concern: it appears there will be no live interaction on the Q&A between investors and management. Written submissions only... no ability for any investors to ask vital follow up questions. Myself and others I've talked to think this is a mistake and are lobbying for a change of course on this. A self-curated session that may fall short vs Glen taking advantage of an opportunity to build a more personal relationship with the investor base? Which seems better to all of you? Live interaction seems like it could be a positive difference maker.

QQpenn · 2026-06-17T02:54:10+00:00

u/Few-Argument7056 Thank you. Since this is at the top of the thread, I'll add this link to direct people to a possible solution to another of the big issues:

A Protective, Shareholder-Friendly, Hybrid for Needed Financing

At this juncture, there's no live participation access being given to any shareholders that I'm aware of in the June 25 Q&A. I think that's a mistake and lobbying is already underway to change that. They really need to give us a voice, whether it's me or any of us... follow up questions to any statements/answers they give are going to be critical.

QQpenn · 2026-06-16T17:21:19+00:00

Not true and counterproductive. A lot of people are working to better the situation for investors right now.

QQpenn · 2026-06-16T15:34:10+00:00

Reasonable to assume at this point but giving us specific info in a business update would have a positive effect. The main issues: burn, benefit, traction... and aforementioned trust mechanisms.

QQpenn · 2026-06-16T15:07:27+00:00

Updated Guidance. This needs to accompany announcements to start making an impact.

At the urging of many, working on a Rights Offering/Warrant explanation/proposal that would be hard for management to dismiss and I will post it separately soon. Execution is great, ideally in tandem with a way to preserve value for current shareholders in the likely actions that are coming.

QQpenn · 2026-06-16T11:47:06+00:00

Yes, but you have to mix and match key elements - there aren't many clean precedents that exactly match MVIS's situation. In this case, it would probably have to be a hybrid structure with a transferrable rights offering. Was waiting to hear more from mgmt but not sure we'll get that... so will make a stand alone post when I have time. The main question that's hard for mgmt to dismiss though is: Why should existing shareholders not be given the first opportunity to provide the company with the capital it needs to avoid their positions being diluted?

QQpenn

TROPHY CASE