gitreal
3日前
Mines don't disappear. The mythical Guerrero Mine should still be there, even if some reclamation occurred. It would have been a significant operation given the supposed $82 million profit upon its sale.
It is so obvious that it never existed. The original big lie that resulted in huge losses for investors. No location, no concession number, no technical reports, no production figures (grade, tonnage, ounces produced). Hell, nobody even knows if it was an open pit or an underground operation.
Everything based on the Guerrero Mine is also a lie: the management (James Gilbert), the sales price, the assets (gold plus cash), and the gold-backed crypto coin.
Who would be dumb enough to think it was real?
NotTheRealBeeny
1週前
What is the downside of proving the Guerrero gold exists?
AABB has repeatedly tied its story to the Guerrero transaction. That deal allegedly included $30 million in gold bullion, which later became a key part of the company's precious metals narrative and ultimately the gold-backed token story.
If the gold exists, proving it should be easy.
A transaction of that size should have generated paperwork from multiple sources.
AABB's records.
The seller's records.
Shipping records.
Custody records.
Vault records.
Transfer records.
Third-party confirmations.
This isn't some secret mining process or proprietary technology. It's a bullion transaction that should have left a paper trail in multiple places.
In fact, of all the claims surrounding AABB, Guerrero may be the easiest one to verify because the evidence shouldn't depend on a single source or a single person's word.
So what's the downside?
If the gold exists, produce the documentation and put the issue to bed.
If it doesn't, that's a very different conversation.
The reason I keep coming back to Guerrero is because it's the beginning of everything. The precious metals holdings, the balance sheet, and the gold-backed token narrative all trace back to that transaction.
NotTheRealBeeny
1週前
One thing I keep coming back to is the external processing.
The company has disclosed that material is being sent out for further processing and recovery.
If that's true, then there should be a paper trail.
Not a small paper trail.
A massive paper trail.
For over a year we've seen truckloads leaving the operation. Material doesn't just disappear into a black hole after it leaves the gate.
Someone has to receive it.
Someone has to sample it.
Someone has to assay it.
Someone has to determine payable metals.
Someone has to calculate recoveries.
Someone has to determine settlement values.
Someone has to pay somebody.
That process generates documents.
Assay reports.
Settlement sheets.
Recovery reports.
Refinery statements.
Shipping records.
Payment records.
In fact, if material has been continuously shipped for third-party processing, there should be more documentation available, not less.
After 413 days, investors still do not know how many ounces of gold and silver have actually been produced by the operation.
Not projected.
Not estimated.
Actually produced.
There should be records showing how much material was shipped, what grades were received, what metals were recovered, and what was ultimately paid.
That's not bashing.
That's not FUD.
That's basic due diligence.
Where is the paperwork?
NotTheRealBeeny
1週前
The Etzatlán plant opened 413 days ago.
After 413 days, investors still do not know how many ounces of gold or silver the operation has actually produced.
Think about that.
We have had ribbon cuttings, investor tours, drone videos, equipment photos, production claims, revenue claims, stockpile announcements, cyanidation plans, and now rGO plans.
What we still don't have are the basic numbers that matter.
How many total tons have been processed?
What were the average head grades?
What recovery rates were achieved?
How many ounces of gold were recovered?
How many ounces of silver were recovered?
Where are the assay reports?
Where are the refinery receipts?
The situation becomes even stranger when you remember that AABB has disclosed that material is being sent out for further processing and recovery.
If third parties are performing the final recovery, then there should be records.
There should be settlement reports.
There should be assays.
There should be refinery statements.
There should be a clear record showing exactly how much gold and silver was recovered from the material being shipped.
Instead, investors are expected to accept revenue figures without being shown the underlying production data.
After 413 days, these are not unreasonable questions.
They are basic mining questions.
So let's keep it simple.
How many ounces of gold and silver has the Etzatlán operation actually produced since opening on April 16, 2025?
Not projected.
Not estimated.
Not inferred from revenue.
Actually produced.
NotTheRealBeeny
2週前
AABB Counter-Report
What the “Comprehensive Corporate Financial Report” Actually Shows
1. Executive Summary
AABB’s report presents itself as a comprehensive financial review.
It is not.
The report itself states that all financial data was sourced from the existing Q1 2026 Quarterly Disclosure. In other words, the core numbers were already public.
What changed was the packaging.
The company took existing Q1 disclosure data, added graphics, added valuation language, added future catalysts, and framed the stock as undervalued.
That is not comprehensive financial reporting.
That is investor marketing.
2. What Changed?
Very little.
The report did not provide:
• A bullion audit
• A token backing audit
• Gold ounces produced
• Silver ounces produced
• Recovery rates
• Refinery receipts
• rGO pilot results
• rGO recovery data
• Buyback reconciliation
• Proof that repurchased shares reduced the outstanding share count
The report did provide:
• Valuation arguments
• Market cap comparisons
• “Gold Arbitrage”
• “Implied Discount”
• Future catalysts
• Revenue projections
• Promotional interpretations of existing assets
That matters.
A real report reduces uncertainty.
This report mostly repackages uncertainty into a cleaner sales pitch.
3. The Gold Arbitrage Problem
AABB argues that the market is undervaluing the company based on bullion value.
But the report does not independently verify the bullion.
No audit.
No vault report.
No custody statement.
No third-party attestation.
No full metal reconciliation.
The company wants investors to value AABB based on bullion holdings while still asking investors to trust management’s numbers.
That is not verification.
That is belief.
4. The Production Problem
The report discusses revenue and production activity but still does not provide the operational data needed to evaluate the business.
Where are the:
• Ounces produced
• Ounces sold
• Feed grades
• Recovery rates
• Concentrate grades
• Processing costs
• Refinery statements
Revenue alone is not enough.
Without the underlying production metrics, investors cannot independently judge whether the mining operation is efficient, scalable, or economically meaningful.
5. The rGO Problem
The report says rGO technology is being integrated across facilities.
That phrase is vague.
It does not mean:
• Pilot complete
• Technology proven
• Commercial deployment achieved
• Recovery rates improved
• Multiple facilities producing results
• More LOIs coming
Those are assumptions being added by shareholders.
The report provides no pilot data, no recovery data, no before-and-after comparison, and no commercial result.
“Being integrated” is a process description.
It is not proof of success.
6. The Token Problem
AABB continues to claim gold-backed digital assets.
That is a serious claim.
But the report does not provide independent token backing verification.
No audit.
No third-party attestation.
No public reconciliation between token obligations and verified bullion.
The company cannot promote gold-backed tokens while avoiding the obvious question:
Where is the proof of backing?
7. The Buyback Problem
The report promotes the buyback program.
But investors still need the basic reconciliation:
• How many shares were repurchased?
• At what average price?
• Were they retired?
• Are they held as treasury?
• What was the effect on outstanding shares?
Without that, “buyback” becomes a headline, not a measurable shareholder benefit.
8. The Real Conclusion
AABB’s report is useful, but not for the reason bulls claim.
It shows exactly how the company wants new investors to see the story:
Gold.
Cash.
No debt.
Buybacks.
Tokens.
rGO.
Stockpile value.
Future catalysts.
Undervalued stock.
But it does not resolve the central issues critics have been raising.
The report changes presentation.
It does not materially change the evidence set.
If the goal was transparency, the missing data should have been included.
If the goal was promotion, the report accomplished exactly what it was designed to do.
NotTheRealBeeny
3週前
From Whitecastle to rGO:
Same Scale, Different Story
Whitecastle Capital converted roughly 3.24 BILLION shares into the market over the years at conversion prices as low as $0.0004.
By March 31, 2025, AABB still disclosed another 939,395,000 potential conversion shares remaining tied to the note.
AABB had already been publicly promoting versions of the “Whitecastle resolution” story since October 18, 2023. But after all that buildup, the actual settlement activity finally appears in Q1 2025:
approximately $8M paid toward extinguishing the remaining Whitecastle obligation and removing the remaining ~939M share conversion overhang.
At the same time, the company was effectively sitting at its authorized share ceiling:
- 3.6B authorized shares
- 3.595B outstanding shares as of March 31, 2025
Then shortly afterward, AABB expands the share structure and introduces the 940M-share rGO transaction.
That’s where the symmetry becomes difficult to ignore.
One massive opaque share structure winds down.
Another nearly identical-sized opaque share structure suddenly appears.
~939M remaining Whitecastle conversion shares.
940M rGO shares issued.
Different narrative.
Same scale.
Same opacity.
One structure tied to Whitecastle Capital, a toxic convertible arrangement that had already pushed billions of shares into the market.
The other tied to:
- obscure counterparties
- unverifiable entities
- “trade secrets”
- no disclosed patents
- no independent valuation
- no demonstrated commercial deployment
- no technical proof the system functions as represented
And somehow the “value” of the rGO IP just happened to equal:
940,000,000 shares × $0.025 = $23.5M
Almost like the share issuance itself determined the asset value.
That’s the part people should focus on.
Not graphene buzzwords.
Not sci-fi recovery claims.
Not promotional mythology.
The mechanism.
Because once again, a massive share issuance event gets transformed into a balance sheet asset story.
Hot Features
プレミアム
登録してリアルタイムのアラート、カスタムポートフォリオ、市場の動きを入手してください。
patrique4
3日前
wii1dr
1週前
gemstar66
1週前
メールアドレスで登録
