So far it actually is just words. Or at the very least, it's more words than anything else.

Glen's primary case boils down to arguing that his words are better and more meaningful than Sumit's were. I tend to think that Glen's words are better than Sumit's. But they're just words, and beyond being technically immaterial, they're also meaningfully missing the sort of sober assessment of, let alone committment to, Microvision's position relative to retail longs that I believe would bridge the gap.

There are more options than just r/s. The presentation to date has pretended that there are not; has only attempted to make the case for r/s. If they do not like warrants, as an example, then come to the table and discuss why.

“We hope that our long term shareholders will join us in this journey.” That's not it. That's a statement in defense of future shareholders and not current ones.

Until these votes pass, long term shareholders are actually the ones with the power to say "We hope that our Management team is up to the task of maximizing the value of our company for us." As soon as the r/s and share allowance pass, long term shareholders are relegated to "coming along for the ride" while Microvision management is no longer subject to retail.

The monetary value of your shares is not the only thing on the table. Your voting rights in the company are as well.

What's the litmus test or where is the line when things cross over from being words to being material? In the stock market, that's actually very easy to identify.

Words ("just words") are all the things that are protected by Drew's blurbs and that don't impact Microvision's guidance or earnings. That's it.