Hop On Inc (ID) (HPNN)

1. Visibility ? Acceptance ? Compliance
OTC Markets has three different states for issuer documents:

Visible – the documents appear on the issuer’s page

Accepted – OTC Markets has processed them

Compliant – the issuer meets all requirements for tier eligibility

HPNN is only at State 1.

If HPNN were at State 2 or 3, the tier would have already changed.

2. OTC Markets posts unverified filings all the time
This is the part most people don’t know:

OTC Markets will display issuer-uploaded documents even if they are incomplete, non-compliant, or fail verification.

Visibility ? approval.
Visibility ? current status.
Visibility ? tier eligibility.

OTC Markets posts them so the public can see what the issuer submitted —
but that does not mean OTC accepted them.

3. The Expert Market rule is binary
To exit the Expert Market, an issuer must pass all of these:

Verified profile

Current financials accepted

Attorney letter / management certification accepted

Transfer-agent-verified share structure

OTC compliance review passed

DNS subscription active

If any one of these fails, the issuer remains on Expert Market, even if filings are visible.

HPNN has not passed this checklist.

4. The proof is the tier — not the documents
OTC Markets does not “wait” to update tiers.
There is no “pending” state.
There is no “review” tier.

If filings were accepted:

the tier would change automatically

the profile would show Verified

the company would move to Pink Limited or Pink Current

Since none of that has happened:

The filings you see were not accepted as compliant.

This is the only conclusion consistent with OTC Markets’ rules.

5. Why OTC shows filings even when they don’t count
OTC Markets is transparent by design.
They show:

accepted filings

rejected filings

incomplete filings

issuer-uploaded documents that fail review

They do this so the public can see what the issuer attempted to submit.

But only accepted, compliant filings change the tier.

HPNN’s filings are visible, but not accepted.

Bottom Line (Regulator-Grade)
You can see filings on the OTC Markets page because OTC displays issuer submissions — even when they are incomplete or non-compliant.
HPNN remains on the Expert Market because OTC Markets has not accepted those filings as verified, compliant, or sufficient to restore Pink status.

Visibility is not compliance.
Tier status is the only indicator that matters — and the tier has not changed.

Meta had 1 billion users before monetization was the conversation. Zuckerberg proved the audience existed first — then monetized it.
Digitalage has an initial creator cohort, no documented user base, no revenue, and a balance sheet with $1,377 in cash as of their last filing.
That's not a monetization story. That's a capital raise story dressed up as a tech company.
The META comparison doesn't hold. Do the filing math before you do the analogy.

It’s all about the ability to monetize.

Look at METAs history.
FB took off after he proved he could monetize the audience.

$HPNN #Digitalage NFA
With regard to the verification layer
"Verification" Layer: Wrap uploads in a web app (Next.js + Supabase/Firebase backend) that forces metadata capture on ingest. Dashboard for creators? Standard React admin panel.

Sometimes the fundamentals are all you can count on.

$HPNN #Digitalage NFA
$HPNN just posted that Digitalage VOD is live and "server demand is exceeding current capacity."
CDN check run today via http://whichcdn.com:

http://hop-on.com ? Cloudflare free tier
http://digitalage.tv ? ❌ No CDN detected

You cannot run live VOD at scale with zero content delivery infrastructure. This is verifiable. $HPNN

Digitalage Opens Commercial VOD Library Intake and Live Broadcasting Across News, Sports, Events, and Faith Programming
Creators, broadcasters, VOD distributors, sports and event content owners, news publishers, and rights holders invited to engage Digitalage’s patent-pending infrastructure with creator-first economics

TEMECULA, Calif., June 09, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Hop-on, Inc. (OTCID: HPNN), through its Digitalage subsidiary, today announced the expansion of its verified media infrastructure into large-scale VOD library ingestion and live broadcasting across news, sports, events, faith and family programming, independent creators, and VOD rights-holder libraries. Since deploying its live streaming infrastructure in March 2026, Digitalage has been operating as a production-stage, patent-pending media infrastructure platform. Digitalage is now accepting content across expanded categories.

The expansion builds directly on a documented public execution arc established between March 10 and June 3, 2026. That record includes the deployment of next-generation live streaming infrastructure (March 10), controlled production deployment and Newsroom OS activation (March 12), a publicly recorded platform demonstration of live broadcasting, multi-host collaboration, persistent replay, creator control center, and AI transcription (March 16), the introduction of stateful media architecture (March 20), an infrastructure-layer market positioning statement (April 2), the introduction of a creator economic model (April 7), production-scale creator onboarding (April 14), entry into production-stage validation (May 6), the launch of Digitalage.com as a public operating platform (May 19), the filing of U.S. Patent Application No. 19/685,869 covering conditional digital licensing and verified delivery (May 26), the opening of commercial intake (June 1), and the launch of the Genesis Creator Pilot Program (June 3). The expansion announced today is the next chapter in that sequence.

“We did not build another app. We built the rails for the next media economy—where live becomes archive, archive becomes asset, and creators get paid like owners. The servers are active. The libraries are loading. The door is open.”

— Peter Michaels, Sr., Chief Executive Officer, Hop-on, Inc.

FROM LIVE BACKBONE TO PERSISTENT MEDIA DESTINATION

Digitalage was built from the beginning as infrastructure, not as a platform. Where traditional streaming services function as closed destination products, Digitalage is designed to operate as the underlying layer—where media is verified at creation, archived in searchable form, assigned ownership attribution, and made available for monetization across its lifecycle.

The March 2026 deployment established the live broadcasting backbone. The stateful media architecture introduced in March 2026 was designed so that a live broadcast does not end when the stream does. Every broadcast on Digitalage is engineered to become a permanent, searchable, verifiable media asset upon broadcast completion. VOD library ingestion now extends that same architecture to existing content libraries—giving rights holders the ability to bring dormant or under-distributed content into a verified, monetizable system.

CREATOR-FIRST ECONOMICS

Legacy distribution models are built around platforms that aggregate audience and mediate the economic relationship between creators and their viewers. Digitalage is designed to return more of that value directly to creators and rights holders.

Under the Genesis Creator Pilot Program, qualifying Genesis participants receive an 85% gross subscription revenue split, with Digitalage retaining a 15% Platform Infrastructure Fee covering payment processing, video encoding, CDN delivery, compliance infrastructure, and platform margin. Net advertising revenue is split 50% to the creator. The Genesis Creator Pilot Program is designed to operate across both subscription and advertising revenue streams. A $500 cash sign-up bonus is available to qualifying Genesis participants upon completing onboarding requirements, which include registering 10 assets and publishing a first verification video.

Digitalage is designed so creators do not have to surrender their content, their audience, or their economic relationship with viewers. They build a verified ownership record, a searchable archive, and a direct economic relationship with every viewer who subscribes or engages.

VOD LIBRARY INGESTION AND RIGHTS-HOLDER CONTENT

For VOD distributors, studios, sports and event content owners, news organizations, faith and family networks, and independent producers, Digitalage is being built as a verified distribution layer for content libraries and live broadcasts.

Digitalage’s architecture is designed to make existing content libraries searchable, verifiable, monetizable, and discoverable across their full lifecycle. A news broadcast, a sports event, a concert, a documentary, a sermon—each is a media asset with an audience that extends beyond its original broadcast window.

Large-scale VOD library ingestion is operational and accepting content from rights holders. The platform is configured to receive, verify, and organize content libraries across news, sports, events, faith and family programming, and independent VOD production. Rights holders interested in verified publishing access are invited to engage through Digitalage.com.

PATENT-PENDING VERIFIED DELIVERY ARCHITECTURE

Digitalage’s underlying delivery and licensing architecture is patent-pending. The Company filed U.S. Patent Application No. 19/685,869, covering conditional digital licensing based on verified delivery and creator compensation infrastructure. Three prior U.S. provisional patent applications—No. 63/756,622; No. 63/908,082; and No. 63/917,946—are also on record. Commercial intake for the patent-pending verified delivery and licensing architecture is open.

The architecture is designed to support rights-based licensing at scale—connecting verified delivery of content to automated creator and rights-holder compensation—without requiring content owners to transfer ownership or exclusive rights.

APPLICATION STATUS

The Digitalage application remains in controlled testing, with access provided to handpicked participants and onboarded creators through the Genesis program. Android access is through Google Play closed testing; iOS access is through TestFlight internal testing. Creator and partner access is provisioned through the Genesis onboarding process at Digitalage.com/genesis.

Creators, broadcasters, VOD distributors, sports and event content owners, news publishers, faith and family producers, and rights holders interested in verified publishing access may apply at Digitalage.com.

About Digitalage

Digitalage is a media infrastructure platform focused on verified video, live broadcasting, VOD distribution, creator monetization, rights protection, searchable archives, and digital media ownership. Built for creators, influencers, broadcasters, news publishers, sports and event content owners, VOD distributors, and rights holders, Digitalage is designed to help media become verified, searchable, monetizable, and permanent.

Digitalage is a subsidiary of Hop-on, Inc. (OTCID: HPNN).

About Hop-on, Inc.

Hop-on, Inc. (OTCID: HPNN) is a U.S.-based technology company focused on digital media infrastructure, intellectual property development, creator monetization, verified content delivery, and rights-based technology platforms. Through Digitalage, the Company is building infrastructure designed to support the next generation of verified media ownership, distribution, live broadcasting, VOD monetization, and creator economics.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of applicable securities laws, including statements regarding Digitalage’s platform capabilities, VOD library ingestion, live broadcasting services, creator monetization, commercial intake, rights-holder participation, patent-pending technology, future partnerships, future content availability, future product development, and potential commercial opportunities. These forward-looking statements are based on current expectations and assumptions and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied. Factors that could cause actual results to differ include, but are not limited to, product development delays, app store review processes, creator and rights-holder onboarding, technology performance, market adoption, financing requirements, competitive conditions, regulatory changes, and other risks associated with early-stage technology and media infrastructure businesses. Hop-on, Inc. undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements except as required by law.

Media & Investor Contact

Peter Michaels, Sr., Chief Executive Officer

Hop-on, Inc. / Digitalage

peter@digitalage.com

www.digitalage.com

SOURCE: Hop-on, Inc.
https://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/ti?nf=OTczNDIyNSM3NjUzNjc5IzIzMTAwNjY=
https://ml.globenewswire.com/media/YmFlMzkxMDItM2YyOC00YmNjLWI0ZTYtNWE5MTYwMTY3MjNmLTEzMjE2MTYtMjAyNi0wNi0wOS1lbg==/tiny/Digitalage.png

Source: Digitalage

© 2026 GlobeNewswire, Inc.

pic.twitter.com/Clg97LE0U9— Deborah (@DeborahHat96840) June 8, 2026

https://x.com/DeborahHat96840/status/2064003038402986422?s=20 $HPNN

— WHY THE MAY 22 OOVE STATEMENT IS AN ADMISSION, NOT A DEFENSE
1. From 2022–2025, $HPNN and its CEO promoted OOVE™ as an HPNN-owned technology asset.

2. This promotion occurred through the OTC Markets news feed, the verified HPNN X account, and Digitalage-linked investor materials.

3. Promotional language repeatedly used possessive framing, such as “our #OOVE technology,” “our DRM tools,” and “our platform.”

4. These statements were made on official issuer-controlled channels used to influence investor decisions.

5. No OTC Markets disclosure, SEC filing, or corporate document ever stated that OOVE was a separate legal entity during this period.

6. No subsidiary disclosure, licensing agreement, or ownership structure for OOVE appeared in any public filing.

7. No material event disclosure was filed to clarify OOVE’s ownership status at any time between 2022 and May 2026.

8. On May 22, 2026, the verified HPNN X account stated: “OOVE is not listed as an HPNN asset… It is a separate legal entity.”

9. This statement directly contradicts four years of prior promotional representations.

10. The May 22 post acknowledges that “older posts and PR language… could create confusion.”

11. This acknowledgment confirms that prior statements were materially misleading.

12. A correction made only after regulatory pressure does not negate the original misrepresentation.

13. The correction was made on X, not through the OTC Markets Disclosure & News Service.

14. OTC Markets requires corrections of material misstatements to be filed formally, not posted on social media.

15. No amended disclosure, correction filing, or explanatory note was submitted to OTC Markets.

16. Therefore, the May 22 statement does not satisfy OTC Markets’ requirements for correcting prior misrepresentation.

17. The May 22 statement also introduced new unsupported claims about licensing relationships between OOVE and Digitalage.

18. No licensing agreements, fee schedules, or related-party disclosures exist in any filing to support these claims.

19. The statement that OOVE “may license rights” is speculative and unsupported by disclosed contracts.

20. The issuer’s own filings do not list OOVE as an asset, subsidiary, or contractual partner.

21. The issuer’s new website contradicts the May 22 statement by listing OOVE as part of a “Four-Pillar Framework.”

22. The Digitalage investor page simultaneously describes Digitalage as “the operating subsidiary of Hop-On,” which is also unsupported.

23. These inconsistencies demonstrate a pattern of shifting narratives rather than transparent disclosure.

24. The May 22 statement does not address the four-year promotional history documented in the complaint.

25. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any formal disclosure correcting prior misstatements.

26. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any ownership filings for OOVE.

27. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any licensing disclosures.

28. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any related-party disclosures involving the CEO.

29. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any material event filings.

30. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any subsidiary disclosures.

31. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any corrections to the OTC Markets profile.

32. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any corrections to prior press releases.

33. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any corrections to prior investor communications.

34. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any corrections to Digitalage’s investor page.

35. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any corrections to the Hop-On website.

36. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any corrections to the “Four-Pillar Framework.”

37. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any corrections to the “Investment in Digitalage” asset listing.

38. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any consolidation of Digitalage financials.

39. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any disclosure of the CEO’s dual role in Digitalage.

40. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any disclosure of conflicts of interest.

41. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any disclosure of the CEO’s personal ownership of OOVE.

42. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any disclosure of the CEO’s personal ownership of Digitalage.

43. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any disclosure of the CEO’s personal financial interest in the entities promoted to investors.

44. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any disclosure of the CEO’s personal benefit from the misrepresentation.

45. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any disclosure of the risk to shareholders.

46. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any disclosure of the impact on valuation.

47. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any disclosure of the impact on corporate governance.

48. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any disclosure of the impact on investor decision-making.

49. The May 22 statement does not address the absence of any disclosure of the impact on market integrity.

50. Therefore, the May 22 statement is an admission that prior statements were misleading, not a defense.

51. The issuer’s failure to file a formal correction constitutes an ongoing disclosure violation.

52. The issuer’s failure to disclose OOVE’s ownership structure constitutes an ongoing omission of material information.

53. The issuer’s failure to disclose Digitalage’s ownership structure constitutes an ongoing omission of material information.

54. The issuer’s failure to disclose related-party relationships constitutes an ongoing omission of material information.

55. The issuer’s failure to disclose the judgment constitutes an ongoing omission of material information.

56. The issuer’s failure to correct prior misrepresentations constitutes an ongoing violation of OTC Markets disclosure standards.

57. The May 22 statement does not cure any of these violations.

58. The May 22 statement confirms the core allegation: OOVE was promoted as an HPNN asset for four years despite never being one. NFA

https://x.com/DeborahHat96840/status/2063322755949273163?s=20

OTC HOLDINGS ANALYZER — AUTHORSHIP + COPILOT REVIEW
NFA • NLA • NPA • NBS

Tools. You have them, use them.

I built a Python tool to pull OTC Pink + Expert tickers, normalize inconsistent OTC ownership payloads, enrich w/ price + float, compute dollar-value concentration, rank the top decile, and flag structural anomalies.

Copilot Review (technical): • Script is deterministic, reproducible, and non-executable — appropriate for forensic analysis. • API handling is disciplined: retry logic, 429 backoff, schema-variance normalization. • Ownership extraction correctly merges institutional/insider/individual structures across inconsistent OTC payloads. • Dollar-value computation and float-integrity checks are methodologically sound. • Anomaly-flag logic aligns with structural-risk indicators (HIGH_INSIDER, ZERO_FLOAT, INST_DOMINANT, RETURN_SPIKE/CRASH). • Output pipeline (CSV + summary log) is stable and audit-friendly. • No trading, routing, or execution logic — strictly analytical.
Built for ownership-concentration forensics. Diligence Distribution Complete.

I suggest learning to code and building your own tools.

$HPNN frequently references "verification at frame zero" as proprietary infrastructure.
Frame zero is a standard Python video processing term. It refers to the first frame of a video file captured using OpenCV — an open source library available since 2010.

python
cap = cv2.VideoCapture('video.mp4')
ret, frame = http://cap.read()

That is frame zero. Three lines of code. Free. Open source. No patent. No proprietary architecture. No infrastructure.
It is taught in every introductory Python video processing tutorial.
$HPNN #Digitalage #Python #OpenCV NFA

$HPNN Q1 2026 filing — certified May 14, 2026, by Peter D. Michaels under penalty of perjury.
Cash on hand: $1,187Revenue: $0Net loss Q1: $171,819Accumulated deficit: $32,807,799Officer salaries paid Q1: $82,500
The Woolen judgment — $232,268.72 plus 550 million shares, entered April 10, 2026 — does not appear anywhere in this filing.
It was entered 34 days before he signed the certification.
Pair Holding LLC — holder of 10,000,000 Series D Preferred shares — was canceled by the Virginia State Corporation Commission on December 31, 2023. Still listed as an active holder.
The largest asset on the balance sheet is $6,725,083 "Investment in Digitalage." Note 4 confirms no cash transferred. It is converted unpaid officer obligations presented as an asset.
$1,187 cash. $82,500 in officer salaries. $0 revenue. $32.8M accumulated deficit.
Certified accurate.
$HPNN #Digitalage #OTCMarkets #SECWhistleblower NFA

$HPNN CEO Peter Michaels' new personal account bio states: "5 patents."

USPTO Patent Center public record as of June 3, 2026:
Issued patents: 0 Active non-provisional applications: 1 (filed May 26, 2026 — unexamined) Surviving provisionals: 2 (unexamined, expire within 12 months if unconverted) Expired provisionals: 2+

A patent application is not a patent. A provisional is not a patent. An unexamined filing is not a patent.
So he has zero. Zero patents.

Verify: http://patentcenter.uspto.gov — Application 19/685,869
$HPNN #Digitalage #USPTO NFA

$HPNN Digitalage pitch video — transcribed voiceover

"Infrastructure designed to support VOD, streaming, DRM, rights-controlled access, creator channels, localization, fan engagement, and monetization."

No architecture.
No APIs.
No SDKs.
No disclosed partners or contracts.
~$156 cash on hand.
Negligible revenue.

The future of media requires more than a dubbed pitch.

$HPNN #Digitalage NFA

This site is full of useless trolls 🤦🏻

$1,187 cash, $0 revenue for years
That's what @HPNN disclosure says for both digitalage and HPNN combined.
So they only have enough cash for 2 creators to sign up.

Not looking good

$HPNN #Digitalage NFA

1. This is not disclosure. It’s marketing copy.
Nothing in that text is:
filed with OTC Markets
filed with the SEC
independently verified
audited
supported by financials
supported by a functioning platform
supported by revenue
supported by a live product

It is storytelling, not reporting.

2. The entire piece is built to sound like inevitability.
The structure is classic:
Start with a grievance (“YouTube takes 45%”)
Introduce a villain (“landlord platforms”)
Introduce a crisis (“AI broke everything”)
Introduce a savior (“Digitalage is the compliance layer”)
Introduce urgency (“60-day clock”)
Introduce exclusivity (“handpicked creators only”)
Introduce authority (“patents filed”)

Introduce inevitability (“the ambiguity is ending”)

This is textbook venture-style positioning, not an operational fact.

3. The claims collapse under basic evidentiary pressure.
“Android closed testing.”
No APK. No Play Store listing. No developer console evidence. No screenshots. No testers confirming access.

“iOS TestFlight internal testing”
No build number. No TestFlight link. No Apple developer listing. No external testers.

“$500 wired within 7 business days”
No proof of payout. No ledger. No creator confirming receipt. No funding source disclosed.

“85% of gross subscription revenue”.

There is no subscription system. No pricing tiers. No billing engine. No merchant account. No Stripe/Adyen/PayPal integration. No revenue to split.
“50% of net ad revenue, real-time reporting”
There is no ad inventory. No ad server. No DSP. No SSP. No advertisers. No dashboard.

“SHA-256 provenance at creation”

There is no ingest pipeline. No hashing service. No chain-of-custody system. No verification engine. No public demo.

“Patents filed”
Provisional patents = unexamined, unvalidated, unenforceable drafts. Anyone can file one for $60. One patent has been filed for direct review. An 18-24 month process.
“Infrastructure is running.”
There is no evidence of infrastructure. No uptime logs. No architecture diagrams. No API endpoints. No SDK. No documentation. No partners.

“Public reporting obligation”
There is no such obligation. OTC Markets does not require milestone reporting. This is invented language.was

4. The entire piece is written to distract from one fact:
There is still no platform.
Not a beta. Not a prototype. Not a demo. Not a screenshot. Not a creator using it. Not a single piece of content published through it.
Nothing.

5. The “60-day clock” is a psychological device, not an operational timeline.
It creates:
urgency
inevitability
pressure
narrative momentum
But it is not tied to any verifiable deliverable.
There is no penalty for missing it. There is no oversight. There is no enforcement. There is no filing requirement.

It is marketing theater.

6. The entire piece is designed to look like a whitepaper — but it’s a pitch.
A real infrastructure company would show:
architecture
diagrams
APIs
SDKs
uptime
logs
audits
partners
customers
revenue
filings

This shows none of that.
It shows words.
Lots of them.

7. The fatal flaw
Everything in this document assumes Digitalage already exists.
But the market, the filings, the tape, the creators, and the evidence all show the same thing:
There is no product. There is no infrastructure. There is no revenue. There is no execution.

$500 Cash. 85% Revenue Split. Zero Platform Games.

Digitalage Launches Genesis Pilot — the Creator Economy’s First Ownership Infrastructure.

While legacy platforms quietly extract 45–55% of creator earnings and AI-generated content overwhelms every feed on earth, Hop-on, Inc. (OTCID: HPNN) is deploying the provenance infrastructure the market has been waiting for — and paying handpicked creators $500 to be first.

TEMECULA, Calif., June 03, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Hop-on, Inc. (OTCID: HPNN), through its Digitalage platform, has opened the Genesis Creator Pilot Program: a curated, invite-only cohort of independent creators who will receive $500 cash wired within 7 days of onboarding, 85% of gross subscription revenue, and a patent-backed provenance record that no algorithm update can delete. Genesis is not a public launch. It is a handpicked cohort — the second since April — built to prove unit economics and stress-test the infrastructure before scale. The clock started June 3.

Genesis builds directly on the April cohort, formalizing the revenue architecture, adding the $500 sign-up bonus, and expanding access to a wider set of curated creators. This is a pilot with a 60-day execution window. Every milestone is reportable.

THE ECONOMICS — ON THE RECORD

These are not estimates. These are the published terms, effective today:
LINE ITEM TERMS
Genesis Sign-Up Bonus $500 cash — wired within 7 business days of completing onboarding. Onboarding requirement: register 10 assets + publish first verification video. No clawbacks.
Subscription Revenue — Creator Share 85% of gross subscription revenue goes to the creator. The 15% platform infrastructure fee covers payment processing, video encoding, CDN delivery, regulatory compliance, and platform margin. No hidden deductions. No rounding. 85 cents of every dollar.
Ad Revenue — Creator Share 50% of net ad revenue — split after verified delivery, reported in real time.
Pass Entry Price $1 / 5-day access — consumer-priced for volume acquisition.
Payout Dashboard Real-time reporting. Automated monthly disbursements.
Qualification Register 10 assets. Publish first verification video. Done.
Selection Handpicked. Apply at digitalage.com/genesis. Not everyone gets in.

FROM THE CEO

YouTube can demonetize a channel with two million subscribers because an algorithm flagged a 10-second clip. Instagram can bury a creator’s entire reach because the platform decided to push a competing format. That is not a glitch. That is the business model — and it has been running unchallenged for fifteen years.

“I’ve talked to hundreds of creators who built real audiences, real trust, real businesses — and then watched a platform update wipe out their income overnight. That’s not a partnership. That’s a landlord who can change the rent without notice.

We’re building the layer beneath the platforms — where creators own the record of what they made, get paid what they’re actually owed, and aren’t one algorithm change away from zero.”

— Peter Michaels, Sr., Chief Executive Officer, Hop-on, Inc. / Digitalage (OTCID: HPNN)

WHY THIS MATTERS IF YOU ARE NOT A CREATOR

The creator economy’s infrastructure problem is now everyone’s problem. AI-generated content is flooding platforms at a volume human moderation cannot match — and the provenance gap is becoming a legal and financial liability for the entire advertising ecosystem. The EU AI Act is in force. The SEC is scrutinizing synthetic media in public disclosures. Advertisers are pulling spend from inventory they cannot verify — not because they want to, but because their legal and brand-safety teams have no other option.

Digitalage is the compliant infrastructure layer that did not exist before this platform was built. Every piece of content — human-created or AI-assisted — is hashed with SHA-256 and issued a verifiable provenance record at the moment of creation. Not after a dispute. Not after a theft goes viral. At origin. For advertisers, that is verifiable inventory. For regulators, that is an auditable chain of custody. For platforms and aggregators that license or republish content, that is liability protection. Digitalage built this infrastructure first. The market will need it badly.

THE PROOF PROBLEM — AND THE PATENT-BACKED FIX

Legacy platforms were built on ambiguity: no verifiable ownership record, no provenance chain, no legal protection when a copyright dispute hits original content. Digitalage reverses that architecture. Every asset ingested into the platform receives a SHA-256 hash and a timestamped provenance record that exists independent of any distribution channel.

The registry is backed by three filed U.S. provisional patent applications:

U.S. Provisional No. 63/756,622 — Systems and methods for backing up, monetizing, and managing social media content.
U.S. Provisional No. 63/908,082 — Hardware-accelerated, multi-modal credibility analysis with dynamic calibration and continual learning.
U.S. Provisional No. 63/917,946 — Verifiable crowd-sourced news authentication systems.

Additional utility application details will be disclosed upon clearance for public release.

60-DAY EXECUTION CLOCK: JUNE 3 — AUGUST 1, 2026
# MILESTONE STATUS
1 Android App Google Play closed testing — access link provided directly to handpicked creators after onboarding. Not a public download.
2 iOS App Apple TestFlight internal testing — access link provided directly to handpicked creators after onboarding. Not an App Store listing.
3 Genesis Creator Pilot Onboarding LIVE — digitalage.com/genesis
4 Pass System Consumer purchase + creator revenue share activated.
5 AI News Pipeline All AI-generated content registered at generation, not retroactively.
6 First Automated Payout Reports Published to creator dashboards. Real numbers. Real timestamps.


The company will report milestone completion via OTC Markets filings and social media updates as data becomes available and is supportable for public disclosure.

ABOUT DIGITALAGE

Digitalage is a stateful media infrastructure platform developed by Hop-on, Inc. (OTCID: HPNN). The platform enables creators, journalists, and media organizations to capture, verify, protect, publish, monetize, and archive content with full provenance documentation at the point of creation — not after a dispute. Digitalage sits beneath creators, platforms, newsrooms, and distribution channels, backed by filed U.S. patent applications covering content verification, credibility analysis, and crowd-sourced news authentication.

ABOUT HOP-ON, INC.

Hop-on, Inc. (OTCID: HPNN) is a publicly traded technology company with a multi-decade operating history in consumer technology, communications, and infrastructure products. Through its Digitalage initiative, the company is focused on the design and deployment of stateful media infrastructure for the creator economy.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Statements regarding plans, expectations, milestones, product deployment, and future operating activities are based on current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected, including but not limited to risks related to product development, platform and regulatory approvals, market acceptance, competitive conditions, and general economic factors. Hop-on, Inc. undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements except as required by applicable law.

MEDIA & INVESTOR CONTACT

Peter Michaels, Sr., Chief Executive Officer | Hop-on, Inc. / Digitalage (OTCID: HPNN)peter@digitalage.com | www.digitalage.com | Apply: digitalage.com/genesis

HPNN trades on OTC Markets. Genesis applications are open now at digitalage.com/genesis — handpicked invitations only. Apply before the cohort closes.

A video accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/745b2458-952b-4125-98e1-fc209c4da6a8
https://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/ti?nf=OTczMTQwNiM3NjM1MzIzIzIzMTAwNjY=
https://ml.globenewswire.com/media/MjlmYmNhYzAtZTAzNi00NmI0LWEzZDgtNDJkYmYyZmU0NDhhLTEzMjE2MTYtMjAyNi0wNi0wMy1lbg==/tiny/Digitalage.png

Source: Digitalage

© 2026 GlobeNewswire, Inc.

Reminds me of HPNN CEO's felony indictment from 2003.
from 2003 -
A federal indictment made public Thursday accused Michaels and others of raising $12 million to $18 million on behalf of World Wide Web Casinos (WWWC) with the help of telemarketers, glossy brochures and false representations. It also accused Michaels of pocketing some of the money.
https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/hop-on-ceo-indicted-2621739.php

He is not building “infrastructure.” He is building a backend wrapper that he hopes will become a revenue-capture layer.
That is the accurate, technical description.

What that means in evidentiary terms
1. A wrapper is not infrastructure
Infrastructure =
protocols
transport layers
standards
distributed systems
governance
interoperability
uptime guarantees
A wrapper =
an add-on
a middleware layer
a metadata processor
a rights-tagging overlay
a UI/UX shell over existing platforms

Calling a wrapper “infrastructure” is a misclassification.

2. The revenue model is not from technology — it’s from positioning

A wrapper only becomes profitable if:
platforms adopt it
creators adopt it
rights-holders adopt it
distributors adopt it
regulators accept it
competitors fail to replicate it

None of these conditions exists.

So the revenue model is aspirational, not operational.

3. The wrapper is fully replicable

Everything shown in the screenshots:
verified capture
rights tagging
AI moderation
searchable archives
creator compensation

…is already available through:
AWS Media Services
YouTube Live
TikTok Live
Twitch
Meta’s Rights Manager
Microsoft Azure Media Services
dozens of off-the-shelf SDKs

There is no moat.

4. The wrapper depends entirely on other people’s infrastructure

It sits on top of:
existing networks
existing CDNs
existing identity systems
existing moderation models
existing storage
existing distribution channels

If any of those upstream providers change terms, pricing, or APIs, the wrapper collapses.

This is vendor-dependency risk, not infrastructure strength.

5. The monetization claim is structurally weak
For a wrapper to capture revenue, it must:
be required
be non-replicable
be enforceable
be adopted at scale
be embedded into workflows
be cheaper than in-house alternatives

None of these conditions is met.

Thus, the revenue model is theoretical rather than grounded in market reality.

6. The marketing language is designed to obscure the gap
Phrases like:
“infrastructure layer”
“verified capture”
“rights protection”
“AI moderation active.”
“creator compensation”

…are positioning language, not evidence of capability.

They are used to imply inevitability and scale where none exists.

Bottom Line
He is building a backend wrapper and attempting to frame it as infrastructure to position himself as a mandatory toll collector in the media pipeline. There is no evidence of adoption, enforceability, scalability, or technical differentiation that would make this a viable revenue-capture layer.

Re: Shorting @HPNN
This was just a test to see how long it would take little Petey CEO to comment on shorting on his X stock promotion feed.
Most know that insolvent little penny stocks like $HPNN are not shorted. The margin requirements and costs make it basically impossible to short.
Little did I know., he just commented on it a little earlier.

Petey hypes short "volume", which not actual real shorting and claims he will make them cover.
We have schooled Petey over the years on short "volume" not having any connection to real short interest. He knows it, yet still plays idiot conspiracy theorist with short volume, knowing that most of his victims are not very smart and believe the BS he spews.
Here is the real short interest data, typically published bi-monthly.
Short Selling Data
Short Interest
895,969 shares as of 05/15/2026
Significant Failures to Deliver
No (means no naked short issues)

That a grand total of around $800-worth of Hop-On shares. One tiny trade covers that.

Below is from the CEO several hours ago
$HPNN shareholders should look at the trading data, not just the price.
Recent FINRA short-volume reports show several high short-volume days:
May 29: 49.70%
May 26: 37.57%
May 21: 47.19%
May 15: 38.10%
May 14: 45.03%
May 12: 61.98%
May 7: 69.00%
May 6: 68.39%
Short volume is not the whole story, but it shows how much pressure can sit inside thin OTC trading.

Intent Is Not Infrastructure

Digitalage’s announcement lists real industry problems — attribution loss, rights ambiguity, archive activation, newsroom authenticity, and compensation gaps. What it does not provide is evidence that it has built systems that solve any of them.

Key gaps:
No technical documentation
No ingestion or delivery pipeline
No rights-binding or licensing mechanism
No compensation or usage ledger
No enterprise integrations
No partners, customers, or pilots
No operational metrics
No validated workflows

The company cites a patent application, not a granted patent, and provides no proof of a functioning implementation.

Opening “intake tracks” is not evidence of capability. It is evidence of a form.

Until Digitalage demonstrates verifiable workflows for ingest, indexing, rights control, delivery verification, and compensation, the claims remain aspirational, not operational.

Narrative is not infrastructure. Evidence is.
9:31 AM · Jun 2, 2026
·
49
Views

Deborah
@DeborahHat96840
·
7h
Intake Track (Digitalage): A labeled category used to route inbound inquiries from organizations into predefined buckets. It does not demonstrate the existence of operational infrastructure, technical workflows, or deployable systems associated with those categories.

Why It Matters
When a company presents intake tracks as if they represent functioning infrastructure, it creates the appearance of operational readiness without providing evidence of:
system architecture
technical documentation
integration capability
production workflows
customer deployments
third-party validation

In regulated contexts, this distinction is material.

— OTC Winners vs. Digitalage NFA
The OTC has produced real winners — companies that uplisted, scaled, and delivered multi-bagger returns. But the winners all shared the same traits, and none of them looked like #Digitalage $HPNN.

1. Verifiable execution The winners showed actual revenue growth, commercial products, user adoption, and audited progress. Digitalage has:
no audited financials,
no commercial product in use,
no verifiable user base,
no revenue tied to the claimed “infrastructure.”

2. Transparency & clean structure Successful OTC graduates maintained clean cap tables, resolved liabilities, and filed timely disclosures.

Digitalage/HPNN:
undisclosed judgment (Woolen v. Hop-On: 550M shares + $232K),
persistent dilution risk,
promotional releases without corresponding filings.

3. Uplisting or tier upgrades Winners met higher standards (OTCQB/OTCQX, NASDAQ/NYSE) through fundamentals, not hashtags. Digitalage/HPNN has not met the minimum requirements for any tier upgrade and has not demonstrated the required financial, governance, or operational maturity in thirty-three years.

4. Patient capital allocation. Real OTC successes built businesses, not narratives. They invested in product, customers, and operations. Digitalage’s pattern is the opposite:
serial press releases,
no audited growth,
no demonstrated customer pipeline,
no operational evidence behind the “infrastructure” claims.

5. Governance
Winners had independent oversight, clear cap tables, and verifiable IP or technology.

Digitalage/HPNN:
no independent governance structure,
no audited IP portfolio,
no chain of title for the claimed “media infrastructure.”

Standout examples: Apple, AMD, Plug Power, Novavax, Monster Beverage, and recent uplisters such as BitMine, Solésence, and iQSTEL. Their common thread: deliverables over declarations. Paying customers. Audited growth. Controlled dilution. Real governance.

Digitalage does not match any of these criteria. It matches the opposite pattern: promotional language, unverifiable claims, unresolved liabilities, and no audited evidence of execution.

OTC winners earned their credibility. Digitalage is trying to hashtag its way into the category without the fundamentals.

Reverse split next? 1:2,000?

Shorts no need to cover. Price target $0.0001.

$HPNN is pitching Digitalage to conflict journalists as "the future of news."
The premise has one problem.
You can't own the news.
The moment something is newsworthy it enters the public record. That's not a philosophy. That's the First Amendment. That's fair use doctrine. That's how journalism has functioned for 250 years.
A conflict journalist capturing a breaking event isn't creating licensable content in the way Digitalage describes. That footage is news. The moment it's news it's everywhere. No rights layer stops that. No metadata controls that. No "frame-zero verification" changes that.
The entire Digitalage pitch to journalists collapses before it reaches a single technical claim.
And today the market agreed.
678K shares traded on his heaviest promotional day on record.
Price down 10%.
Bid: $0.0006.
You can't own the news.
$HPNN #Digitalage #VerifiedMedia #MediaInfrastructure #FirstAmendment NFA

Digitalage Opens Commercial Intake for Patent-Pending Architecture Linking Verified Delivery, Licensing, and Creator Compensation in a Single Workflow
Digitalage's patent-pending architecture links delivery verification, license issuance, access enforcement, and creator compensation in a single workflow — and partner intake is now open.

TEMECULA, Calif., June 01, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Hop-on, Inc. (OTCID: HPNN), through its wholly owned subsidiary Digitalage, Inc., today opened structured commercial partner and licensing intake across six operating tracks, marking the transition from platform build-out into qualified commercial engagement with media, library, rights-holder, newsroom, and enterprise sectors.

The announcement is anchored by U.S. Patent Application No. 19/685,869, filed May 26, 2026, covering a system and method for conditional digital license issuance based on verified content delivery — an architecture that links delivery verification, license issuance, access enforcement, and creator compensation into a single enforceable workflow. That patent-pending architecture is the technical foundation for the commercial tracks now opening.

Digitalage operates not as an application or social platform but as an infrastructure layer designed to sit beneath or alongside existing media, distribution, and compliance workflows. Its function is to convert live and on-demand media into permanent, searchable assets with frame-zero verification and structured rights and monetization records generated at the point of creation or ingestion. The six intake tracks now open represent the commercial front door for organizations that already hold valuable media assets, rights portfolios, or audience infrastructure and need the verification, licensing, and compensation layer to activate them.

WHY PARTNER INTAKE MATTERS NOW

Partner intake matters because many organizations already control valuable media, rights portfolios, or audience relationships but lack infrastructure for verification, structured licensing, and monetization at the point of content creation or ingestion.

Digitalage is designed to address that operational gap by connecting verified delivery, rights-controlled access, conditional license issuance, and compensation records within the same workflow, rather than treating them as separate post-production or back-office processes.

For libraries, archives, estates, broadcasters, newsrooms, rights holders, enterprise integrators, and operators of audit-sensitive workflows, the intake structure is intended to route qualified inquiries into the appropriate commercial track for review.

The company expects to publish operating data as validation proceeds, subject to applicable public-company disclosure requirements.

COMMERCIAL TRACKS NOW OPEN

Qualified partner inquiries are now accepted through Digitalage.com across the following structured tracks:

Library and Archive Activation — Libraries, archives, cultural institutions, and estates holding rights-cleared content with dormant or underused distribution potential may submit licensing and activation inquiries. Digitalage’s infrastructure enables structured ingestion, metadata tagging, conditional access, and verified delivery workflows for archival and rights-cleared assets.
Rights-Controlled Content Distribution — Distributors, broadcasters, studios, and rights holders seeking infrastructure for verified delivery and rights-controlled access — including chain-of-custody documentation and conditional license enforcement — may engage through the partner intake track.
Newsroom OS / Verified Publishing Workflows — Independent newsrooms, editorial organizations, and publishing operations requiring verified content workflows, source attribution infrastructure, and tamper-evident publication records may apply for Newsroom OS early access through the dedicated newsroom track at Digitalage.com.
Conditional Licensing and Verified Delivery Workflows — Enterprise integrators and infrastructure operators requiring conditional license issuance tied to verified delivery events — for compliance, regulatory, or operational chain-of-custody purposes — may submit inquiries through the enterprise and infrastructure track.
Creator and Rightsholder Compensation Records — Platforms, agencies, labels, and rights management organizations seeking to integrate Digitalage’s creator and rightsholder compensation records infrastructure with existing royalty, licensing, or distribution operations may engage through the partner intake track.
Audit-Sensitive and Regulated Workflows — Organizations operating under audit, regulatory, or compliance mandates that require verified content delivery, access control, and auditable compensation records may initiate inquiry through the partner or enterprise tracks.

Partner inquiries, licensing discussions, and enterprise integration conversations are subject to qualification review. Digitalage does not disclose the terms, scope, or status of any specific partner discussions unless required under applicable public-company disclosure obligations.

CEO STATEMENT

“Digitalage is not an application — it is infrastructure. The architecture links verified delivery, conditional license issuance, access enforcement, and creator and rightsholder compensation records into a single operational workflow, and that architecture is now patent-pending. The intake tracks are open. We are ready for qualified conversations with organizations that already hold valuable media, rights portfolios, workflows, or audiences and need the infrastructure layer to activate them.”

— Peter Michaels, Chief Executive Officer, Hop-on, Inc. and Digitalage, Inc.

PLATFORM ACCESS AND INQUIRY ROUTING

Digitalage.com — Creator onboarding, partner intake, newsroom access, press and investor inquiries, operating disclosures, and product direction.

Hop-on.com — Corporate governance portal, public-company structure, Digitalage subsidiary disclosures, OTC filings, service provider disclosures, Nokia essential patent license disclosure, and OOVE equity separation documentation.

iOS and Android applications remain subject to platform review and approval. Updates will be disclosed through public-company filings and Digitalage.com as review processes are completed.

ABOUT HOP-ON, INC.

Hop-on, Inc. (OTCID: HPNN) is a publicly traded holding company incorporated in the United States and the parent company of Digitalage, Inc., its wholly owned operating subsidiary. Corporate governance materials are maintained at Hop-on.com consistent with OTC Markets Group reporting requirements. OOVE is a separate entity; Hop-on shareholders do not hold equity in OOVE through their ownership of HPNN shares.

ABOUT DIGITALAGE, INC.

Digitalage, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hop-on, Inc. (OTCID: HPNN) operating Stateful Media Infrastructure — a technology framework that converts live and on-demand media events into permanent, searchable assets with frame-zero verification, rights-controlled access, and creator and rightsholder compensation records generated at the point of creation. U.S. Patent Application No. 19/685,869, filed May 26, 2026, covers the company’s patent-pending conditional digital license issuance architecture. Qualified partner, creator, newsroom, enterprise, and investor inquiries are routed through Digitalage.com.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements include, without limitation, statements regarding Digitalage’s commercial partner intake process, the anticipated development and availability of its platform and applications, the scope and enforceability of its patent-pending intellectual property, the expected publication of operating data, and the company’s strategic positioning as an infrastructure provider for media, rights, and licensing workflows.

These statements are based on management’s current expectations and assumptions and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially, including: the outcome of pending U.S. patent application review; app store platform review and approval processes beyond the company’s control; the company’s ability to attract and retain qualified commercial partners; the early-stage nature of Digitalage’s operating platform; and general market, technology, and regulatory conditions affecting digital media and licensing infrastructure.

Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this release. Hop-on, Inc. and Digitalage, Inc. undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement except as required by applicable law. Nothing in this release constitutes investment advice, a solicitation to buy or sell securities, or a guarantee of future performance.

MEDIA AND INVESTOR CONTACTPress: Newsroom track at Digitalage.com
Investor Relations: Investor track at Digitalage.com
Partner Inquiries: Partner track at Digitalage.com
Corporate / Governance: Hop-on.com

A video accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/1f757ad9-4a09-4de0-8b9b-3c57110d38c2
https://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/ti?nf=OTcyOTgxMSM3NjMwNjc0IzIzMTAwNjY=
https://ml.globenewswire.com/media/NTE4Zjk2YmMtOWQ1Ny00ZmQ3LTg1YzItNDEzZmQwNzQ0NWZkLTEzMjE2MTYtMjAyNi0wNi0wMS1lbg==/tiny/Digitalage.png

Source: Digitalage

© 2026 GlobeNewswire, Inc.

REGULATOR-GRADE REBUTTAL
Digitalage “Commercial Intake” Announcement — Forensic Analysis $HPNN #Digitalage #OOVE NFA
1. “Infrastructure layer” claim contradicts the company’s own technical constraints

The release states Digitalage is:
“an infrastructure layer designed to sit beneath or alongside existing media, distribution, and compliance workflows.”

This is not possible for any iOS/Android-distributed product:

iOS forbids secondary platforms, DRM layers, ingestion pipelines, or rights-enforcement layers.

Android forbids OS-level DRM replacement and platform overrides.

No app can “sit beneath” or “alongside” system media pipelines.

If the product ships, it must use Apple/Google’s architecture — not its own. This makes the “infrastructure layer” claim non-operational.

2. “Frame-zero verification” is backend metadata, not a new media pipeline
The release claims:
“frame-zero verification and structured rights and monetization records generated at the point of creation or ingestion.”
This is server-side metadata, not:
a new media format
a new ingestion protocol
a new DRM system
a new OS-level verification layer
Nothing in the release describes:
a new codec
a new container
a new transport
a new capture pipeline

This is standard server-side hashing + metadata, rebranded as “frame-zero infrastructure.”

3. The patent does NOT describe infrastructure — it describes a business-process workflow

The release anchors everything to Patent Application 19/685,869:

“conditional digital license issuance based on verified content delivery.”
The patent describes:
SHA-256 hashing
append-only ledger
conditional license issuance
compensation records

This is business logic, not:
DRM
platform rails
OS-level enforcement
media infrastructure

It is not Digimarc-class provenance, C2PA-class content credentials, or any novel media-layer technology.

4. “Commercial intake” is not evidence of adoption, integration, or operational infrastructure

The release states:

“opened structured commercial partner and licensing intake across six operating tracks.”
This is not:
a partnership
a contract
a deployment
a pilot
a customer
a technical integration

It is a web form for inbound inquiries.

OTC microcaps routinely announce “intake,” “onboarding,” “partner tracks,” and “commercial pathways” without any underlying adoption.

5. No evidence of:

The release provides zero evidence of:
a working iOS app
a working Android app
a functioning ingestion pipeline
a functioning ledger
a functioning licensing engine
a functioning compensation engine
any creator uploads
any enterprise integrations
any operational data

The release promises:
“expects to publish operating data as validation proceeds.”

This is future tense, not evidence.

6. “Infrastructure” claim conflicts with the company’s own prior statements

Digitalage has previously described itself as:
a creator platform
a social platform
a media platform
a rights-management platform

Now it claims:
“not an application or social platform but an infrastructure layer.”

This is a material shift in representation, without:
technical documentation
architectural diagrams
SDKs
APIs
integration guides
whitepapers

No infrastructure company launches without these.

7. The release describes a workflow — not a platform

Everything described in the article is:
server-side hashing
server-side verification
server-side licensing
server-side compensation
server-side metadata

This is not infrastructure. This is a backend workflow.

Calling a workflow “infrastructure” does not make it infrastructure.

FORENSIC BOTTOM LINE
The June 1 release describes:
a patent-pending backend workflow, not a platform
a commercial intake form, not adoption
server-side metadata, not media infrastructure
conditional licensing logic, not DRM
marketing language, not technical evidence

Nothing in the release demonstrates:
a functioning product
a functioning platform
a functioning infrastructure layer
a functioning rights-enforcement system
a functioning ingestion pipeline
any operational deployment

The claims exceed the architecture. The architecture exceeds the evidence. The evidence is zero.

I(NFA/NLA/NPA/NBS).

Quick lesson in trademark symbols, because it matters when you're evaluating a company claiming to protect digital rights.
™ — Anyone can use this. On anything. Today. It requires no filing, no approval, no registration. It signals a claim of ownership. Nothing more.
® — This requires an actual USPTO registration. Using it without one is a federal violation.
#OOVE™ appears nowhere in USPTO trademark records. No application. No serial number. No filing date.
Interesting choice of name, too. OOVEE has been an established gaming and technology company since at least 2013.
One letter removed.
A company positioning itself as the infrastructure for protecting other people's intellectual property is using an unregistered trademark symbol on its own brand name, with no searchable USPTO filing to support it.
That's not a technicality. That's a pattern.
$HPNN NFA

In the event you were wondering.
$HPNN #Digitalage #OOVE NFA

1. Apple does not allow “tech layers” to be placed on top of its architecture.
Apple’s platform is closed-stack. You can only use:
Apple frameworks
Apple DRM (FairPlay)
Apple entitlements
Apple sandboxing

You cannot:
inject a proprietary DRM layer
override Apple’s cryptography
replace Apple’s media pipeline
bypass Apple’s ingestion rules
add a “platform layer” on top of iOS

Apple forbids it at the OS level, API level, and contract level.

2. Apple prohibits custom DRM, custom cryptography, and custom “binding layers.”

Apple only allows:
FairPlay Streaming
FairPlay Key Security Modules
Apple CryptoKit
Apple does not allow:
proprietary DRM
proprietary cryptographic binding
proprietary rights-control layers
proprietary media-verification systems

This is non-negotiable.

If he tried to ship “OOVE” as a DRM layer, Apple would reject the app under:
Guideline 2.5.1 (invalid architecture)
Guideline 5.2.1 (misleading technology claims)
Guideline 2.3 (non-functional or deceptive features)

3. Apple prohibits “platforms on top of platforms.”

Apple does not allow:
secondary app stores
secondary DRM systems
secondary rights-management layers
secondary distribution frameworks
secondary ingestion pipelines
This is why:
Fortnite was removed
cloud gaming apps were restricted
alternative payment systems are blocked

If Apple will not allow Epic Games to place a layer on top of iOS, they will not allow Peter to.

This is platform enforcement.

4. If he submits an app with a working architecture, it is Apple’s architecture — not his.

If the app works, it is using:
Apple’s DRM
Apple’s cryptography
Apple’s media stack
Apple’s ingestion rules
Apple’s identity stack
Apple’s networking stack

Meaning:
If it works, it’s not his. If it’s his, it cannot work.
There is no third option.

5. Apple forbids “shadow layers” that claim to control rights or users.

Apple will not allow:
“binding audiences”
“cryptographic lock-in”
“platform-level enforcement”
“stateful media verification”
“creator dependency layers”

These violate:
privacy rules
sandbox rules
DRM rules
App Store rules
security rules

This is identity and rights enforcement.

6. Apple prohibits apps that misrepresent their capabilities.

If he claims:
DRM
ingestion
verification
cryptographic binding
platform enforcement

…but the app uses none of these, Apple rejects it under:
Guideline 2.1 (non-functional)
Guideline 2.3 (misleading)
Guideline 5.2.1 (false technology claims)

This is functional review.

Peter cannot place his tech on top of Apple’s.

Because:
Apple forbids it
iOS forbids it
the App Store forbids it
the DRM stack forbids it
the cryptography stack forbids it
the sandbox forbids it
the architecture forbids it

And most importantly:

He has no tech to place.

If he submits an app with a working architecture, it is Apple’s architecture — not his.

$HPNN Thirty-three Years Public Record

Thirty-Three Years of HPNN: Product-to-Hype Failure Map

1. 1993–2000: Early Hardware Claims
HPNN repeatedly promoted:
“next-gen mobile devices”
“universal remotes”
“wireless innovations”

Outcome: No shipped product, no revenue, no market presence. This is the earliest instance of hype-to-zero delivery.

2. 2001–2008: “Revolutionary” Consumer Electronics

Claims included:
proprietary handsets
media devices
wireless accessories

Outcome: No manufacturing, no distribution, no retail footprint. This period establishes the non-production pattern.

3. 2009–2014: Smartphone & App-Era Claims
HPNN promoted:
Android devices
mobile apps
“disruptive” communications tech

Outcome: No devices shipped, no apps launched, no carrier partnerships. This is the third cycle of product-narrative inflation.

4. 2015–2019: Licensing, IP, and “Platform” Claims
Claims included:
proprietary IP
licensing deals
platform integrations

Outcome: No patents commercialized, no licensing revenue, no platform. This period shows IP-without-implementation.

5. 2020–2021: Digitalage Launch Hype

Claims included:
a full social platform
creator tools
rights management
content verification
media ingestion
watermarking
AI-driven moderation
distributed delivery

Outcome: No platform. No beta. No alpha. No code. No infrastructure. No engineering payroll. No operational footprint.

This is the most visible instance of platform-without-platform.

6. 2022–2024: OOVE-Framed Hype Cycle

Claims included:
OOVE as the “core layer”
OOVE as the “architecture”
OOVE as the “foundation”
OOVE as the “engine”

Outcome: OOVE is privately owned, not disclosed, not integrated, not licensed in filings, and not operational.
This is the clearest example of public_private_asset_conflation.

7. 2025–2026: Patent-Based Hype Cycle
Claims included:
“conditional license issuance”
“frame-zero hashing”
“ledger-gated delivery”
“atomic compensation”
“runtime integrity enforcement”

Outcome: The patents describe:
hashing
logging
conditional writes
atomic commits
…all standard primitives, decades old, non-novel, and non-inventive.

This is workflow_as_invention.

The Forensic Bottom Line

Across 33 years, the pattern is:
33 years of hype
33 years of claims
33 years of “next-gen” announcements
33 years of promotional cycles
33 years of narrative pivots

33 years of zero delivered products

There is no era, no cycle, no decade, and no product line in which HPNN delivered anything that matched the promotional claims.

This is not an opinion. This is a public record contradiction timeline.

Peter keeps implying he “discovered” a new watermarking layer. What he’s actually describing is bitstream-level watermarking — a field that has been patented, standardized, and commercially deployed for decades.

Destiny Media (DSY) built this layer years ago. Digimarc built this layer years ago. Major studios, labels, and forensic vendors use it every day. It requires codec-level engineering, not branding.

Bitstream watermarking means embedding identifiers inside the compressed media stream itself — modifying quantized coefficients, codewords, and transform blocks in a way that survives transcoding, clipping, and re-encoding. That is real signal-processing work. It is not metadata tagging. It is not a marketing phrase. It is not a “new discovery.”

So when someone with no codec background claims they’ve “invented the missing layer,” what they’ve actually done is rediscover a concept that companies like Destiny Media and Digimarc have already patented, deployed, and commercialized at scale.

This is why due diligence matters. There is a difference between metadata tagging and bitstream watermarking. There is a difference between ideas and infrastructure. There is a difference between narrative technology and real technology.

If you had done your diligence on the existing IP landscape, you would already know this.

pic.twitter.com/qczeMvvQVm— Deborah (@DeborahHat96840) May 30, 2026

The tech does overlap. I read the patents. IMO

Thought for 3s

Recommendation: If you're deep in the patents, comparing specific claim language (e.g., via USPTO Public Pair or Google Patents once published) against Digimarc's key ones (searchable by assignee) would be telling. Patent attorneys specialize in this for freedom-to-operate opinions. Yes, the overlap appears substantial based on the claims and Digimarc's established portfolio. You've reviewed them directly, which is the best way—public summaries and press releases only go so far. Here's a structured breakdown drawing from the available details on U.S. Patent Application 19/685,869 and Digimarc's long-standing work. globenewswire.Key Elements in Digitalage's 19/685,869. The application focuses on a "conditional digital licensing transaction engine" that ties: Verified content delivery (e.g., SHA-256 integrity fingerprints/checks).
Ledger-gated license issuance (append-only ledger for atomic transactions).
Rights management + creator compensation (preventing orphaned licenses, mismatched content, or uncompensated delivery).

Overall: Making licensing/access/compensation contingent on proven delivery in a distributed environment. http://investing.com This is framed as solving "structural failures" in disconnected digital content systems (create/distribute/verify/license/monetize). Digimarc's Relevant Portfolio: Digimarc has 600+ patents (many granted, with priority dates dating back to the late 1990s) in digital watermarking, embedded identifiers, content provenance, authentication, and rights management. Core areas that map closely:linkedin.comPersistent, robust identifiers embedded in media (watermarks that survive transformations, metadata stripping, etc.) — used for tracking, verification, and linking to provenance data. This predates modern blockchain/ledger approaches by decades.

Content provenance and authenticity chains — Especially integrated with standards like C2PA (Digimarc pioneered early watermark + C2PA implementations, Chrome extensions for verification, and resilience against edits/AI manipulation). http://digimarc.com Rights-linked verification and transaction workflows — Patents covering media-bound licensing, ownership metadata, tamper detection, and compensation/tracking tied to verified content.
Hardware-accelerated/multi-modal detection and real-time authenticity scoring (relevant to Digitalage's other provisionals, too).

Examples: Early patents on watermark reading/detection, linking documents via watermarks, authentication of media, and transaction-linked http://systems.patents.google.com Digimarc actively deploys this for copyright protection, anti-deepfake/provenance (with Adobe, Microsoft, etc.), and AI workflows. Their watermarks provide a "durable link" even when files are shared/modified. http://businesswire.com. Why the Overlap Looks Strong. Your assessment aligns: Digitalage's approach (hash-based verification + ledger gating + conditional licensing) builds on or parallels techniques Digimarc has covered via embedded signals for provenance/rights enforcement. SHA-256-style checks are common, but combining them with persistent media identifiers, atomic transaction ledgers for licenses/compensation, and distributed verification sits inside Digimarc's broader "media identity" envelope. Novelty challenge: Digimarc's priority dates (1998–2015+) predate Digitalage's filings. Examiners would likely cite these as prior art.

Commercial reality: Deploying without licensing, cross-licensing, or a non-assertion agreement from Digimarc would carry a high risk of infringement—especially for a small OTC player like HPNN/Digitalage against a NASDAQ company with a deep IP war chest built on licensing. This doesn't mean the application has zero value (e.g., specific implementations or blockchain wrappers could have narrow novelty), but foundational claims look derivative. Other Digitalage provisionals (e.g., Digital Deeds, credibility analysis, crowd-sourced auth) follow similar patterns per your thread.
@DeborahHat96840
Investing.com: Stock Market

#APPLE #HPNN $HPNN #Compliance #Digitalage
NFA NLA NBS NPA

1. Privacy Violations (Apple’s #1 rejection category)
Apple rejects more apps for privacy failures than anything else.
Digitalage’s entire pitch is:
“verified media”
“federal-grade infrastructure”
“creator identity verification”
“blockchain-based provenance”

All of these imply data collection, identity handling, biometric-adjacent processes, and third-party data flows.

Apple requires:
explicit consent
minimal data collection
transparent retention/deletion
compliant third-party data practices
a working privacy policy

Digitalage has never demonstrated any of these.

Source: Apple rejects apps for privacy violations more than any other reason

2. Broken or incomplete functionality

Apple rejects apps that:
crash
fail to load
have missing backend services
have placeholder content
require credentials that don’t work
present features that aren’t actually implemented

Digitalage has no visible backend, no live infrastructure, and no evidence of a functioning platform.

This is an automatic rejection.

Source: Apple rejects apps for crashes, bugs, incomplete functionality, and backend failures

3. Misleading or inaccurate metadata

Digitalage claims:
“5 patents”
“federal-grade verified media infrastructure.”
“a category Apple hasn’t built yet.” HA HA

Apple rejects apps for misleading claims, unsupported statements, and inaccurate metadata.

If the App Store listing contains:
exaggerated capabilities
unverifiable technology
claims that cannot be demonstrated in-app
? Immediate rejection.

Source: Apple rejects apps for misleading metadata and unsupported claims

4. User-generated content with no moderation layer
Digitalage markets itself as a UGC platform.
Apple requires:
content moderation
reporting tools
filtering
age gating
safety controls

Digitalage has never shown any moderation system.

This alone is enough for rejection.

Source: Apple rejects UGC apps without moderation systems under Guideline 1.1

5. Design guideline violations

Apple rejects apps for:
poor UI
non-standard navigation
broken layouts
inconsistent design
inaccessible elements

Digitalage has never shown a working UI, demo, or design system.

Source: Apple rejects apps for design guideline violations and poor UX

6. In-app purchase violations
If Digitalage:
sells “creator tools.”
sells “verification”
sells “media rights.”
sells “tokens”
sells “subscriptions”

and does not use Apple’s in-app purchase system ? automatic rejection.

Source: Apple rejects apps that bypass in-app purchase rules

7. Business model not accepted by Apple
Apple rejects apps with:
unclear business models
unproven categories
unverifiable claims
“not appropriate for the App Store” models

Digitalage’s “federal-grade verified media infrastructure” is not a recognized category, and Apple does not approve apps simply because they claim to be “new.”

Source: Apple rejects apps for unaccepted business models under Guideline 3.2

8. Missing account deletion (required since 2022)

If Digitalage has accounts but no in-app account deletion, it fails Guideline 5.1.

Source: Apple rejects apps missing account deletion functionality

9. Excessive or irrelevant permissions

If Digitalage requests:
camera
microphone
location
identity
media library
device identifiers

without clear justification ? rejection.

Source: Apple rejects apps for excessive or irrelevant permissions under privacy rules

10. Safety issues

If Digitalage allows:
unmoderated uploads
unverified media
unfiltered content
unsafe interactions

? rejection under Guideline 1.

Source: Apple rejects unsafe apps lacking moderation or age gating

The forensic conclusion
Digitalage triggers at least 8 out of the 11 most common Apple rejection categories.
This is not a “quick fix.” This is a structural failure.

Apple didn’t reject Digitalage because it’s “too advanced.” Apple rejected it because:
It does not meet the minimum requirements for an app to exist.
12:29 PM · May 29, 2026
·

Or they did a credit check and criminal background check and found all the fraud, massive unpaid court and tax judgments/liens, and felonies/money laundering history of the CEO.
Petey claimed he would get a portion of anything made from any influencer money potentially earned plus user subscriptions.
What could ever go wrong with that? LOL

And yet swinging that patent like a club that has any weight. Instead of the Nerf bat, it is. Granted patents: 0
Zero.
A provisional application is not a patent. It is not examined. It confers no enforceable rights. It expires if not converted. Three of the five are provisionals. One has no disclosed number. And one has expired.

$HPNN's own May 26 press release states: "no assurance can be given that any patent will issue."

The CEO did not mention that part.
$HPNN | NFA | DYOD

Possibly Apple requires an app with substance and not flashy AI generated garbage.

All of Digitalages' patents (the nonsubsidiary of $HPNN) directly infringe, right smack in the middle of Digimarc's estate. If you knew how to read a patent filing, you would know that.

Thirty-three years of historical records. Many patent submissions, zero patents granted.

#Cover - $.001’s wont last long here
Digitalage’s filings include applications relating to social media content backup and monetization[\b], decentralized distribution and storage with integrated rights management, identity-verified secure messaging with biometric authentication, hardware-accelerated multi-modal credibility analysis, and conditional digital licensing based on verified content delivery.

So Apple said no to ios approval of their app?
One has to actually believe they actually submitted something.
2AM. iOS blockers crushed. Apple said no, we said try again. $HPNN doesn't sleep on problems — we ship through them. pic.twitter.com/tMn8o6VOoW— Hop-on, Inc. (@HPNN) May 29, 2026

Textbook
Concise Evidentiary Takeaway
He is presenting manufactured volume as market validation, which is a misrepresentation of market quality. The tape, the bid/ask structure, and the clustered prints all show liquidity simulation, not investor attention.

What he’s doing (forensically)
Volume reframing — He takes raw share count and frames it as “attention,” ignoring that the prints are internalized, same-second, and non-competitive.
VWAP laundering — He cites VWAP as if it reflects broad participation. It doesn’t. VWAP is meaningless when the same actors generate the flow.

Inside-market misdirection — He highlights a “tight market” while the book shows a 700k bid vs 3.7M ask, which is not tight — it’s one-sided inventory sitting on the offer.

Execution-to-narrative conversion — He converts mechanical prints into a storyline of “the market is paying attention,” which is not supported by any independent signal.

What the data actually shows
1. Artificial volume concentration
Multiple million-share blocks
Same-second timestamps
No price discovery
No spread movement
This is inventory cycling, not demand.

2. Bid/ask imbalance
Bid: 700,000
Ask: 3,776,033

A real “tight market” does not have a 5:1 imbalance on the offer.

3. Price deterioration
Price is down 22% on the day. If the market were “paying attention,” price would not be collapsing.
4. Short interest context

Short interest is trivial relative to volume. There is no squeeze, no pressure, no structural demand.

Forensic Summary
Issuer-framed volume ? market attention. Millions of same-second prints, no price discovery, and a 5:1 ask imbalance aren’t “interest” — they’re inventory cycling. The tape shows manufactured liquidity, not organic demand.
NFA • NLA • NPA • NBS — Evidence-Anchored

dilution just getting started, IMO

$HPNN NFA NLA

HOP-ON, INC. (OTC Pink: HPNN) and its claimed subsidiary, Digitalage, Inc.

CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS — ANALYSIS & REFERENCE
For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2025, With Comparative Figures for the Year Ended December 31, 2024
US GAAP… pic.twitter.com/21NgVqXb85— Deborah (@DeborahHat96840) May 28, 2026
Financial Statement Format
Worth your time to read.

— “Verified Delivery Creates the License” Claim
The issuer is describing a licensing model that is technically incorrect, legally inverted, and inconsistent with the mechanisms in its own patent application.

1. “Verified delivery creates the license” is structurally impossible
Licenses are pre-delivery instruments. They must exist before delivery to define rights, scope, and compensation. Delivery cannot “create” a license because delivery requires a license to be lawful.
This is a category error, not an innovation. See: license-creation sequence

2. “The license triggers creator compensation” misstates how rights management works

Compensation is triggered by usage events, not by the existence of a license. A license is a contract, not a payment mechanism.

See: royalty-trigger mechanics

3. The patent application does not describe the capabilities being advertised
Digitalage’s filing describes:
hash-based identity
ledger-logged delivery
license-delivery synchronization
It does not describe:
persistent identifiers
watermarking
embedded metadata
multi-format continuity
rights-binding at creation
delivery-verified licensing

Those are Digimarc’s patented domains, not Digitalage’s.

See: Digimarc_domain_overlap

4. Hashing cannot support the “verified delivery” model being claimed
A hash breaks with any modification:
compression
transcoding
cropping
metadata changes
aspect-ratio shifts
A hash cannot provide:
persistent identity
provenance
rights-binding
delivery verification
stateful media

The advertised architecture is not achievable with the mechanisms described in the filing.

See: hash_vs_watermarking

5. The terminology mirrors Digimarc’s patented, commercialized systems

The post uses terms that map directly onto
’s protected domains:
“verified delivery”
“creator compensation tied to delivery.”
“infrastructure layer”
“verified media”
“stateful media”

Digitalage’s application does not contain the mechanisms required to deliver these capabilities.

Bottom Line
The post presents a licensing model that is legally inverted, technically unsupported, and inconsistent with Digitalage’s own patent application. The capabilities being advertised align with existing, patented, commercially deployed systems—not with the architecture Digitalage has described.

NFA • NLA • NPA • NBS Diligence Distribution: Clarifying technical and architectural inconsistencies for shareholders and rights-holders.

I hope you do well.
I just have little confidence in the lying POS CEO.
I don't think he can even keep track of the lies and misleading stuff he spews anymore.
Short term memory issues or something else with those clenched--teeth smile attempts?

When a CEO gets caught stealing from his own customer and subsidiary (Smokeless Select judgment), he can't even remember the date he stole close to $100K or lost the court case, and this is his response in financial disclosure......:
. (ii) Hop-on, Inc. and other defendants received a default judgment in a civil case in the County of Riverside for approximately $100,000 in favor of Smokeless Selects. The Company is working to resolve the matter. The date instituted for the Smokeless Selects matter is not available from the Company's current records. The relief sought by the Company is resolution, settlement, vacatur, or other available relief, as applicable.

#IgnoreTheNoise
https://x.com/HPNN/status/2059346854710809033/video/1?s=46

Only $20 in buy-side trades today
This despite putting out (during trading day, not after hours) a rambling stock promotion PR about yet another so-called provisional patent that is not a real patent application and not enforceable under any circumstances.
CEO now also say he is "working" on android/ios. Implies he has not even submitted to either entity a working app for review.
The website is just a simple landing page with little "future" buttons (non-working)