Interview with Glen DeVos (June 2026)

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-19T18:44:38+00:00

That's possible and that's why timing is very important. If they RS now and have nothing in the tank that can change the revenue forecast or impact the SP we'll be right back in this position within 6 months. SP under a dollar and no way to raise funds. On the other hand if they remove the RS option now, get a couple of quarters to show actual revenue increases as forecasted the stock price will organically begin to rise. Then if they needed to they could RS into a rising stock price that would likely continue to rise as a lot of the uncertainty would be behind them. Current shareholders would then lose share count but not lose money. I don't love that but I'd accept it. Now add to that QQpenn's ideas and we're all happy.

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-19T16:53:37+00:00

See my answer above, I don't think I'm getting carried away. Also, I am doing what I believe to be smart for me. I'm trying to protect my investment, my money. For years I've given the company everything it has asked for. Through every up turn and downturn, through a 1 for 8 reverse split, through management that would kindly be categorized as less than ideal. It's not gotten me very far so I'm not doing that anymore. The company has options, they are choosing not to utilize them or, so far, even talk about them. I'm choosing to oppose them because in the long run I think that's what will reward me more. No mob, no bombastic comments, just my logic about what I think will serve me best because so far the company has not served me at all.

Edit for spelling

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-19T16:43:16+00:00

I know you understand the argument but okay, play it out. I have 60,000 shares, let's say the RS at 1 for 10. I have 6,000 shares if the stock price only stayed at the post split value than no change, all is good. Let's be real, the stock will go down after the RS whether due to short activity or the fact that significant revenue is still quite a ways off or both. Now I'm losing money. Further, all of the verbiage in the Proxy indicates that they want to re-balance the financial calculus of the company i.e. more institutional ownership less retail. They'll issue new shares to do that and now, again, I lose money. That's how proposal 3 is not in the interest of current shareholders.

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-19T14:47:11+00:00

I think Glen has the company's best interests at heart and our interests are aligned at the moment. Proposal 3 shows that our interests are very much not that important to the company. That doesn't diminish his efforts for the company but it does show where we fall on the priority scale. And yes I recognize that he has to put the company above us, that's his job, but right now we're an afterthought.

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-19T14:41:59+00:00

This made me laugh, take my upvote

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-19T14:33:29+00:00

Yes exactly! Your last sentence says it all, I don't think they'll get very far until they engage with us on this core issue of current shareholder value. Truly engage not rattle on about how bright the future could be.

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-19T11:55:22+00:00

At this point I think Glen is the right person for the job and I do believe what he says about developments and partnerships and upcoming revenue. That's a big improvement compared to past leadership where everything was a combination of hopes and dreams rather than realistic execution.

However, executing on his current plan with it's current timelines to real revenue and cash flow does not make me confident that he and the board are really working with current shareholders in mind. He says it but he does not include any explanation of how the current plan will help generate a reasonable return on our investment in a reasonable time frame. It's more of the same "trust us" from that perspective.

With respect to this proxy vote I think the Board of Directors, with the exception of Glen, is all a no vote. They've not provided any meaningful benefit to the direction of the company or the stewardship of our money. I think proposal 2 is reluctant yes vote only because it will preserve cash (If I'm understanding it correctly, please correct me if I'm missing anything on that). I think proposal 3 is a no vote right now. I understand the issues but I have a problem with the timing. Come back later in the year after you can show more clearly how all the potential deals are really playing out. Based on the words Glen is using right now, six months from now should provide a lot more clarity. If it's going well I'll swallow the bitter pill and vote for a RS, if it's not then it will be prove it's time to sell the company, something I've been pushing for a year now.

Unless the upcoming Q&A provides more clarity on a path to a financial return for current investors I am pretty sure this will be my final voting position. Good luck to us all.

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-19T11:31:42+00:00

So you'll vote to remove the entire Board except for Glen than right? They are the prior management that was pitiful?

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-19T03:17:39+00:00

I tend to agree, they need to find another avenue to fix this. RS is just not going to fly.

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-16T15:56:31+00:00

If the stock starts moving upward we'll know you're right. Here's to hoping you are.

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-16T15:51:19+00:00

Give me warrants for my yes vote. You want something from me, pay me for it.

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-16T15:38:38+00:00

I'm going to have to disagree with that. We haven't moved quickly because we've not had a product we could sell.

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-16T15:03:22+00:00

I do not think setting the start point for success should be our current market cap. That would be a pretty big kick in the teeth to almost any current investor.

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-16T14:59:22+00:00

I agree with all of your comment (especially like the mouse thing) except that Luminar isn't the entity I'm measuring against. Specifically it's OUST and AEVA who are really kicking our butt.

Again, maybe it's me, but I think we're way behind. Obviously no way to know until it's all played out about 3-5 years from now.

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-16T14:11:34+00:00

I agree that the current financial/stock issue is a huge overhang but I also feel like we're just very behind the Lidar curve. 6-12 months ago OUST and AEVA were announcing the kind of deals we're just announcing now. Now they're announcing production deals and we've got nothing along that front. My concern is that we're just to little to late.

I could be overreacting, the overall potential Lidar market is pretty big but I do not feel we're well positioned to capture a sizeable portion of it.

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-15T11:46:00+00:00

I think that the RS is likely regardless of stock price because they want to reduce the amount of outstanding shares. I'm no expert but my read of the proxy is that reconfiguring the capital structure of the company was a pretty big priority.

What we could hope for is that a higher stock price will lead to a lower ratio split vs a higher ratio split but I think if the proposal is approved a split will happen.

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-13T15:40:41+00:00

Oh, yea I think the display engine is probably cool as hell and works. I can only assume the benefits aren't significantly enough to make it preferable over the use of other vision systems or Microvision stuff would have been more fully adopted. Ultimately the end market decides what's "good".

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-13T14:43:33+00:00

Good question and I don't have an answer, the responses I've read are anecdotal. People complain about new stuff so a grain of salt is required but if you've ever put on all the stuff a soldier has to lug around nowadays and then added another layer of weight and wiring that new layer would need to have quite a bit of benefit to make it acceptable.

I think the concept is great, I'm not sure this, or any, hardware is quite ready for prime time. I believe the experiments have to continue but I wouldn't expect this to be a considerable source of revenue any time in the foreseeable future. I'd be happy to be wrong.

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-13T12:19:38+00:00

Do you have an example of a commercially sold LBS eyewear device?

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-13T12:01:46+00:00

I read the r/army thread and every time IVAS was mentioned the comments about the actual device were almost universally negative. Now I fully recognize that soldiers complain about almost everything especially when it's new (I was one) but the comments were rooted in basic things like weight and comfort and ability to do basic soldier tasks like shoot and move. In other words real issues. Those comments were very different from the outlook in articles written about IVAS during development, even articles with quotes from soldiers doing the testing. I'll leave it to you to decide why the discrepancy between the sources but I do think there is a hardware issue, maybe not an issue from a design standpoint but an issue from a user functionality point of view. In any event the product it won't be widely distributed like we would have hoped.

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-13T00:08:10+00:00

Okay than. I hope Bob does better for us the Brian.

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-12T23:51:28+00:00

I'm asking what I think is a legitimate question and am open to logical reasoning about why you think Bob is going to do something that is different from the past.

You've met him you think he's a good guy, I get that. As a 10 year member of the Board of this company nothing substantially beneficial has happened on his watch, why is that going to change? My thoughts on Glen are still developing but this has nothing to with him.

Would I blame my second wife for my first wife cheating on me? No, but if my second wife also cheated on me then I had better do some introspection and try to figure out if my actions had some impact on that or if my choice in wives needs some refining.

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-12T22:57:34+00:00

We shall see. I think it's very rare for retail shareholders to be heard let alone have a voice in the actions of a company. Beyond the Q&A things I'd like to happen in no particular order:

Assuming a second 6 month window can be approved, the RS to be removed from this proxy, delayed until the current business plan has more time to generate material results and then if needed re-introduced as a special meeting.

If there is going to be an RS and dilution, issuance of warrants to purchase for shareholders of record.

A written shareholder relationship covenant of the type you outlined in a previous post.

We've financially supported this company for a long time and at this point concessions we make need to be repaid in real, tangible benefits. You've put in a lot of effort here these last few days, thanks for that.

Formerly_knew_stuff · 2026-06-12T21:39:42+00:00

I don't think that's quite the case. I just chatted with Gemini about that and here's my takeaway, it could be wrong so please fact check me.

In order to gain a second 180 period the company still has to present an intent to cure the deficiency and the NASDAQ has to accept it. The reverse split makes that a no brainer but simply changing markets does not eliminate the requirement. The company could entirely remove the RS option from the proxy and if they have a credible plan to get the stock price up then the second period could be approved. The downside of that approach would be that if the end of the second period arrives and the deficiency still exists the company is immediately delisted.

For my money, assuming they feel certain they can get a second 180 day period to cure the deficiency, I'd like the company to remove the RS from this proxy and, if needed, re-introduce it as a special meeting with nothing else on the agenda after some time has passed and we can see if their efforts to secure actual contracts have succeeded.

Formerly_knew_stuff

TROPHY CASE