Corin 🇺🇸

Kristen - The reason we are launching GENIUSpark with FNGR / Blueflare is they approached us with the proposed model of datacenters linked with reskilling for communities, they have the powered land, we have the profitable Genius City model and it makes sense. Especially now that demand is outstripping supply worldwide. As for Jolie Kahn - She has supported GNS from the beginning on all our legal fights to protect the company and our shareholders, of which I am the largest. She isnt active on social media and isn't about to be. And I'm not going to be her spokesman. We have followed FNGR for 4 years and have seen a company being pushed towards a fate experienced by so many small caps - where despite the best efforts of management so many end in delisting or bankruptcy. I am not a FNGR investor. If I hypothetically was, I would have hypothetically asked what future the company had six months ago when it was running out of funding options and the underlying business couldn't support it? The only remaining options would be to close down or refocus the business in a direction to ensure its survival. All the conversations and actions between GNS and FNGR have been focused on the latter. I'd like to see both companies survive and thrive. Its easy to bash CEOs for persevering when the easier option is to just close shop and let the bad guys win. As for assessing FNGR's investors, legal settlements come with non-disparagement clauses so we legally can't comment. There is a lot I'd like to say but I legally can't. We have an active class action suit against some of the biggest investors / market makers in the US. Taking the logic we shouldn't do business with any company doing business with them would exclude us from doing anything with pretty much all US public companies. Given the legal issues its better to talk in hypotheticals. A hypothetical company choosing to fight hypothetical manipulation would be advised strongly by its lawyers to think hard before fighting because: (1) It would be a long, hard, expensive fight (2) The other side has much deeper pockets and will do everything they can to push your share price down to zero / force you to delist or go bankrupt before your day in court (3) The other side can play dirty, spread fud, turn your shareholders against you, so expect to be eventually fighting alone (with only the true die-hards remaining). Imagine a hypothetical CEO of such a hypothetical company asking 4 years ago how long would such a fight take? And the hypothetical lawyers say they've already been fighting for 30 years, but with the growth of AI and ability to collect data, and with the speed of the legal system it may take "only" another 5-10 years, but likely not less... Why would any hypothetical company or CEO in their right mind choose to take on such a fight when the odds are so stacked against them? Because the prize isn't a 10x rise or 10x drop in SP. The prize is a change in the system itself. It may take 10 years to get there, but as long as there's enough of us still around, its not a matter of whether just a matter of when. Killing public companies is a national sport. There were over 8,000 listcos on major US exchanges in the 1990s. There's less than 4,000 today. In the last 3 years, 600 new listings have been dwarfed by over 2,500 delistings. 4 deaths for every birth. Its a mass extinction event, and its accelerating. But 4,000 is still enough that anyone hating on the path such a hypothetical company chooses to take - which is to outrun, outlast, outwork, outplay and survive to judgement day - have plenty of other companies to choose from. Those that choose to fight need to keep reminding ourselves we are taking the hard path. It isn't easy. It isn't fast. It comes with short term cost but the biggest long term gain. So lets stop fighting each other. It was never about hating the player, but hating the game. The real game is not the game. The real game is to change the game.