CTO
CTO Realty Growth, Inc.
stock NYSE

> I'm asking myself those questions.
Good. Now ask yourself:
-Why did Glen De Vos agree to come on board MicroVision, first as CTO, and then agree to take on the CEO position if he thought that he couldn’t turn the ship around in the eyes of the automotive LIDAR OEMs? Was he an unknown in the automotive world and doesn’t he have vastly more experience in the automotive world than the CEO of INNOVIZ, AEVA, AEYE, Ouster? Is he not also well regarded in the automotive world?
Keep asking yourself questions about how else he can boost the share price without resorting to a reverse split? Open your eyes and don’t fall for the tunnel vision of the Doom crowd here just because they’re miserable and misery loves company or they have a more nefarious agenda. Keep doing your own due diligence for clues.

Who knows for sure. But when someone joins a company they are not omniscient. They take a risk. I am sure Glen believed in the overall LiDAR market. He was familiar with the Ibeo technology. He was probably impressed with the MEMS LBS technology, especially it's low cost nature. Upon accepting the CTO role, he probably didn't understand it had some warts. I am not in the camp that it was a foregone conclusion that he would matriculate to become CEO. But that ultimately happened. Scantinel and Luminar both fell into insolvency. He serendipitously took the opportunity to acquire those assets.
Maybe Microvision is simply the chosen one. :-) No, I don't believe there is someone or some entity purposefully pulling the strings. But perhaps Microvision is just lucky!
To wit, Sumit pivoted Microvision to LiDAR in early 2020. The LiDAR space was hot! This was not exactly luck, as this could be seen at the time and Sumit should be credited for making the bold move. However, the market went nuts. In 2021, the GME and MEME craze kicked off an incredible market frenzy, even Jeffries Financial blocked short selling of GME, AMC, and MVIS! If this market craziness didn't happen, Microvision would have gone bankrupt or sold for single digit millions.
This was very lucky! It could that the recent acquisitions and their timing were very lucky. We don't know yet. Time will tell. But of course, it isn't just luck that writes the story. Someone needs to capitalize on the luck. Glen speaks of execution. I am confident we will learn more about the execution plan today, but probably not the entire plan.

> I'm asking myself those questions.
Good. Now ask yourself:
-Why did Glen De Vos agree to come on board MicroVision, first as CTO, and then agree to take on the CEO position if he thought that he couldn’t turn the ship around in the eyes of the automotive LIDAR OEMs? Was he an unknown in the automotive world and doesn’t he have vastly more experience in the automotive world than the CEO of INNOVIZ, AEVA, AEYE, Ouster? Is he not also well regarded in the automotive world?
Keep asking yourself questions about how else he can boost the share price without resorting to a reverse split? Open your eyes and don’t fall for the tunnel vision of the Doom crowd here just because they’re miserable and misery loves company or they have a more nefarious agenda. Keep doing your own due diligence for clues.

Who knows for sure. But when someone joins a company they are not omniscient. They take a risk. I am sure Glen believed in the overall LiDAR market. He was familiar with the Ibeo technology. He was probably impressed with the MEMS LBS technology, especially it's low cost nature. Upon accepting the CTO role, he probably didn't understand it had some warts. I am not in the camp that it was a foregone conclusion that he would matriculate to become CEO. But that ultimately happened. Scantinel and Luminar both fell into insolvency. He serendipitously took the opportunity to acquire those assets.
Maybe Microvision is simply the chosen one. :-) No, I don't believe there is someone or some entity purposefully pulling the strings. But perhaps Microvision is just lucky!
To wit, Sumit pivoted Microvision to LiDAR in early 2020. The LiDAR space was hot! This was not exactly luck, as this could be seen at the time and Sumit should be credited for making the bold move. However, the market went nuts. In 2021, the GME and MEME craze kicked off an incredible market frenzy, even Jeffries Financial blocked short selling of GME, AMC, and MVIS! If this market craziness didn't happen, Microvision would have gone bankrupt or sold for single digit millions.
This was very lucky! It could that the recent acquisitions and their timing were very lucky. We don't know yet. Time will tell. But of course, it isn't just luck that writes the story. Someone needs to capitalize on the luck. Glen speaks of execution. I am confident we will learn more about the execution plan today, but probably not the entire plan.

I was very careful to explain my caution with facts and reasoning that were neither *ad hominem* nor reliant on double standards, and bent over backwards to make that plain. You have not always extended the same courtesy. The out-of-lane reference, as you are obviously intelligent enough to have understood, was not directed at the technical merits of any lidar or your expertise in it, but your use of that platform to advance inexpert and occasionally *ad hominem* arguments. Few here, if any, have the lidar expertise that you claim, hence the lack of a similar sermon (your word, not mine). Are you surprised that a person donning the mantle of expert on an investment board might be subject to a heightened level of scrutiny? There is not a single sentence in what I wrote that was unfair or inaccurate. I explained my caution without questioning your expertise or rejecting your ultimate conclusions. You may well be right in your opinion of MEMS, as I freely admitted, but you have no reason to suggest that I stepped over the line above.
Frankly, an anomaly I have yet to reconcile with your MEMS opinion is the strange behaviour it would imply of Glen DeVos. Implicit in your argument is that Glen DeVos knows that MVIS MEMS is unsuitable for any lidar, whether automotive or even drone mapping, as you claimed today.
Yet he came to MVIS after dealing with the company for over 6 months, did a deep dive on its MEMS technology before and during his tenure as CTO, and formulated the Tri-lidar solution with a simplified-to-be-redesigned Mavin as the long-range component. This was all before the Scantinel and Luminar acquisitions, which he justified as offering very long range (in excess of 300m and up to 1 km in the case of Scantinel) or drastically accelerated time-to-market and revenues (Iris and Halo). While stating these things, he repeatedly described the sweet spot for Mavin in automotive as 50-150 m or 50-200 m, albeit with a slightly narrower FOV than polygon scanners. He also, and still, claims that Mavin is useful for aerial mapping at 260 m.
You have not yet suggested that DeVos doesn't know what he's talking about, restricting that opinion to members of this board. Are you now suggesting that DeVos doesn't know what he is talking about, or was deceiving shareholders about the usefulness of MEMS lidar when he said what he said? And if he didn't believe what he said, why then would he have joined the company at all? For Movia?
None of this is to suggest that DeVos will not opt to use a non-Mavin (of any wavelength, whether ToF or FMCW) for long-range automotive. What it does suggest is that DeVos himself does not agree with your central proposition that *MEMS LBS is unsuitable for lidar generally, whatever the application*.
Do you now understand how such a broad assertion, made by you in this context and the further context I set out above, causes me to have some doubt about the accuracy of what you are claiming, even while not rejecting it out of hand?

Doesn't make total sense to me. So Glen was utterly misguided in being the CTO then taking over the company while hawking mems lbs? That is until he saw the light and shifted away from it? I think the engineering effort for mems and Luminar's products together need to be consolidated and streamlined by getting under one roof and forming up the culture Glen was talking about. The closing of Redmond and starting the new culture in Florida is probably the fastest, most cost effiective way to do it. Glen is showing his chops.

>\\\*\\\*Consider what we know:\\\*\\\*
Ok I’ll expect credible sources then.
>1. How it’s used to conduct cross-border payments
Plenty of info direct from Ripple on this.
>2. Ripple owns the majority of shares, primarily (IMO) so they can control the price
Coins, not shares. XRP is not a share of stock of Ripple, Ripple did not issue XRP, XRP ownership does not transfer to Ripple ownership. How would owning a majority of coins control price? Look at the daily, weekly and monthly trading volume and explain what price control Ripple’s monthly escrow or other OTC sales could possibly happen. The math doesn’t math. Ask your favorite AI agent to do the math for you.
>3. The goal is worldwide adoption/to replace SWIFT
Credible source on this? Ripple has stated that they expect to take some marketshare from Swift due to the nature of the technology and banks wanting to have faster cheaper payments without holding nostro vostro accounts, but nowhere have I ever read that the software RipplePayment’s was intended to replace swift. Swift is a secure messaging platform, Swift does not move value, RipplePayments moves value, it is also a secure messaging platform.
>How will smaller and mid-size banks adopt the technology if they can’t afford to buy the large amount of xrp needed in their reserve to conduct transactions?
They don’t need to hold XRP in reserve, RipplePayment’s is a software suite and when ODL (on demand liquidity) is used no nostro / vostro accounts are needed.
>XRP is intended to represent an amount, the amount of money being sent, as I understand it. It would be stupid if it was worth $50 where the dollar is worth $1, right?
No. This post is from David Schwartz.
>It can’t be dirt cheap. That doesn’t make any sense. If XRP costs $1, they’d need a million XRP which would cost $1 million. If XRP cost a million dollars, they’d need one XRP which would, again, cost $1 million.
>Except that higher prices make payments cheaper. Right now, you can buy a million dollar house with bitcoins. When bitcoins where $300, it would move the market too much and be too expensive to be practical. So higher prices make payments cheaper. ~ David Schwartz recently retired CTO of Ripple and co-creator of the XRPL and XRP ~ https://x.com/joelkatz/status/932748963526066178?s=61
Slippage is real, and why moving the market makes payments more expensive, in order to not do that a higher value coin helps with keeping payments cheaper.
>Does ripple control the price because THEY HAVE TO in order to KEEP IT LOW to operate as intended?
Ripple does not control the price. Let’s use critical thinking here. If this was the case, wouldn’t that have been discovered during the 5 years that the SEC had full access to every financial document Ripple had? Wouldn’t that have been a ‘gotcha’ for the SEC? No, and they know what you don’t, Ripple does not control the price, has no means to control the price, and there is no evidence they have controlled the price.
>Is xrp essentially a “hybrid” version of a stable coin (I know it’s not one technically). But it just seems like it has to remain stable or it can’t function as it’s intended.
Your logic used here is false, it may ‘seem’ this way to you, but I don’t know where you derive your assumptions from, but from what I have read from you i’d say you need to get info from the source and not 3rd party. XRP is a country neutral crypto currency that has no central authority, stable coins are issued by companies and under regulation by the jurisdictions they are used in.
>CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME IM AN IDIOT AND EXPLAIN WHAT IM MISSING?
Not an idiot, but you don’t know what you don’t know. Same for everyone until due diligence is done and even then there is always more to discover about what you don’t know and learn.