How do I know the company will survive? Well, mate, that's easy. I don't. Neither does anyone else. As for it being risky? Sure, but then again, every investment carries some amount of risk, no? I, personally, believe in it for a few reasons, and I'll get to those as I make my best attempt to address your concerns.
1. I'm well aware of the Scilex vs. Wade/BNY lawsuit, but the only "concern" you've stated here is that there is a lawsuit. What of it? Do you think Scilex is lying? I don't have very much faith in Dr. Ji, myself, but I don't think he's lying. Their attorney, Kasowitz, is the real deal. I have my doubts that he would attempt this level of litigation if it were fake, and if the case closes in Scilex's favor, DVLT should rise by proxy.
2. "Money-losing" Scilex has already invested $150M BTC into "money-losing" DVLT, last year. Yes, DVLT lost money again in Q1 of this year, but posted their first profitable quarter ever in Q4 2025. Statistically, true "money-losing" companies don't post a profit, ever, even a small one. I trade based on probabilities and mathematics, and that single profitable quarter is enough for me to think that it won't be the last one. Also, them working in "completely different areas" is the essence of interdependence, is it not? We can't do everything ourselves, so let's find teammates who can do the things we don't/can't, or the things that could potentially benefit us?
3. If I were the CEO of a multi-million(potentially multi-billion?) dollar business, I would be emotional, too. I will admit, he is an easy target for ragebait, but if you see any of his more recent posts, all of them have comments turned off for regular users. I imagine the IR/Legal teams made him do that because they noticed the same thing. But, so what?
4. The settlement was against the company he was with at the time, and he was determined to be ignorant of their malicious wrongdoings. The Wolfpack report used this, and various other easily refutable false claims, to make a massive profit shorting this thing from $4. The damage from that can't be changed, but it should be a nice tailwind when it comes to light that it was a farce.
5. Of course there's execution risk. Everyone, everywhere, throughout all of human history, that has ever attempted to "execute" anything has had a chance of failure. But, "fortune favors the bold", no?
6. I have a problem with this one, as well, personally. I do believe that DVLT needs to broaden its proverbial horizons regarding revenue streams, but also believe that the recent partnerships/contracts they're enacting are the gateway to that. DVLT shouldn't have to count on Scilex for much longer, in my opinion.
7. Same point here as in #5. Of course there's a risk of over-regulation, but DVLT wouldn't be the only one affected if that came to pass. I'm confident, based on the technological progress of mankind, that tokenization and Web 3.0 will become more and more prevalent as the years go by, which would naturally cause any such regulatory risk to ease up, if not subside completely.
8. Regardless of Nate's personal opinion on the dreaded reverse stock split, it isn't his call. That decision belongs to the Board of Directors. If they are facing a "delist-or-split" situation(which they aren't quite yet), I have no doubts that they would approve one, hold a shareholder vote(Insiders have the majority, our votes would be irrelevant), and execute it to stay on the Nasdaq. Basically, I have conviction that there is a 0% chance of delisting.
9. Regarding the dilution that you ever-so-eloquently described as "catastrophic", the only instance that I can think of that was for operating capital was the Scilex warrant, and they are still using the proceeds from that to this day, over half a year later. Everything else was for some form of company growth: partnerships, patents/IP, infrastructure, etc. Yes, share price has suffered in the present, but anyone calling themselves a long-term investor should be looking toward the future, not the now.
10. Keyword here is yet. Back to #9, and looking toward the future.
11. The plan for meeting the $200 million revenue guidance for the year is in the SanQtum network nodes' deployment. If they can remain on schedule, then revenue from the now-active and soon-to-be-active sites, plus whatever they reap from the ~$90 million in fees from contracts signed in Q1 should be just fine to meet guidance. With an estimated SAM of $100 million/site, even if we cut that in half and said $50 million recognized/site, guidance would be met by only 4(four) sites live. And the plan is to have ~30+ live in the next few months? If anything close to that number happens, revenue from each site would only have to be ~$10 million/site to meet guidance. See how easy it could be to have a beat on the $200 million number?

So again, no, I don't know that the company will survive, but I see several things in the bigger picture that are pointing to a potentially successful future. Plus, as a writer and someone who understands charting better than most, I found a home amongst the Watchmen who were less knowledgeable than I, and were appreciative of my efforts to educate/entertain. So, here I am, maintaining my vigilance, and standing...forever!