Hop On Inc (ID) (HPNN)

That adds a real second layer — not just "does verification survive," but "who actually controls the content while it's in the app, and what happens to creators if that control structure doesn't hold up." Here's the expanded version:
$HPNN / Digitalage — for creators and investors evaluating "infrastructure for verified media" claims:
The June 9 post states server demand is exceeding current capacity, requiring infrastructure scaling. The same post shows 707 views, 19 likes, 4 retweets.
Separately: the platform's core pitch is "content verified at creation" — positioned as infrastructure other platforms will need. A verification layer is only useful if it survives the content leaving the app — reposted, downloaded, re-encoded elsewhere. Standard re-encoding (which happens routinely once content moves across platforms, including X's own re-encoding on upload) strips basic embedded metadata. Durable provenance systems (the industry standard being C2PA / Content Credentials) are built specifically to survive that, or rely on server-side hash verification rather than fragile file tags.
If verification doesn't survive a single hop off the app, creators should ask a follow-up question: who controls their content while it's there? Digitalage is a private Nevada corporation under the sole control of Peter Michaels — no disclosed equity ownership, no standard subsidiary filings, despite "wholly owned subsidiary" language used in HPNN's public materials. There is no disclosed governance structure separating creator content custody from one individual's personal control.
So the two questions compound: if the verification layer doesn't function once content moves, and the entity holding that content has no disclosed governance protecting it independently of one person — what actually happens to a creator's content, and what recourse exists, if either fails?
NFA DYOR NLA NBS
by Deborah

No. If he takes a step back, it will be up into his position, which he currently holds, which is Chairman of the Board

So CEO Petey is resigning? It is about time.
Looks like his fraud, women-beating, and failure to pay court-ordered and lien obligations is catching up to him.

So little CEO Petey could use a creator's content and actually put it on other platforms like youtube or tik tok and then collect revenue from advertising and put it in his own pocket?

Imagine copyrighting your photography and then find Petey is selling "prints" of the art or putting it on shirts, etc.

isnt' the whole premise of Digitalage built on agentic AI? lol And I know how to code so this territory is not foreign to me.

Much better.... Your own words make you sound slightly wiser.

Go DigitalAge. 🚂

that is what you have. That is your diligence rebuttal. Those are your numbers and your documented sources? O.k.

HPNN I wish you would go back to writing your own stuff. Having AI write for you just makes your words hollow. Used to at least enjoy reading your crap, now I can't even read half of it before I stop and puke.
Trains a coming. Go DigitalAge. 🚂

Digitalage's Terms of Service: Marketing Promises vs. Contract Reality

Digitalage's Terms of Service (effective May 16, 2026) use Big Tech–style, perpetual commercial licensing language, while the company itself is a thinly capitalized, pre-revenue microcap with no proven platform, audience, or monetization engine. That combination makes this not a "high-risk, test-carefully" situation but a "do not upload at all" situation for any creator who cares about long-term control of their work, likeness, or brand.

1. What Digitalage markets vs. what the Terms say

Digitalage's public materials and "For Creators" page emphasize an ownership-centric narrative: creators are told they will own their work as infrastructure rather than as inventory on someone else's platform, that every broadcast becomes a permanent, verified, searchable asset owned "from frame zero," and that rights logic and permanent ownership remain in the creator's control.

The actual Terms of Service tell a different story. Section 7.3 grants Digitalage and its affiliates a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, fully paid, transferable, sublicensable license to host, store, cache, index, reproduce, and transmit content; to transcode, reformat, adapt, modify, edit, and translate it; to distribute, publicly perform, and publicly display it; to create derivative works from it; to use it for promotion, marketing, and advertising; and to otherwise use it in any media now known or later developed. The license extends to a creator's name, image, likeness, voice, and persona in connection with the service.

The marketing is ownership-centric. The contract is platform-centric.

2. The license grant and why the counterparty makes it unsafe

The license Digitalage demands is perpetual (it does not expire), irrevocable (it cannot be withdrawn later), and transferable and sublicensable (Digitalage can pass the content and associated rights to partners, vendors, acquirers, or a bankruptcy estate). It also carries derivative-works rights and name/likeness rights tied to the service.

On a mature platform — YouTube, TikTok, Meta — creators sometimes accept similar language because there is massive proven distribution, established monetization, operational history, and a real, measurable audience to weigh against the risk. Digitalage has none of that, and the corporate structure around it compounds the problem: Digitalage is a privately held Nevada corporation under the sole control of its principal, with no disclosed equity ownership or standard subsidiary filings connecting it to any public parent. There is no public-company oversight, audited financials, or governance transparency standing behind the entity asking for these rights.

A perpetual, transferable license becomes an asset in any restructuring, liquidation, or sale. If the company fails, pivots, or is sold, the content and associated rights travel with whatever entity or estate ends up holding them — and there is no practical way to claw those rights back, because the license is irrevocable the moment it's granted. Even if the platform never scales, never pays, or never really launches, a creator's content and likeness can still be held as part of an IP portfolio, packaged into a sale, or used to demonstrate "assets" to future investors or acquirers. The creator gets no audience, no revenue, no stability — but the license they granted remains live regardless.

This is also why "just test with low-value content first" does not work as a risk-management strategy here. That logic depends on being able to evaluate a real, functioning platform and walk away if it disappoints. Digitalage's license has no undo: a single test upload is permanently licensed, transferable, and sublicensable from the moment it's submitted, with no proven infrastructure or track record to evaluate it against. The Genesis creator-cohort structure makes this worse rather than better — to even qualify for the $500 Genesis bonus, creators are asked to register ten original assets plus a verification video, each carrying the same sweeping license. That isn't a small, reversible experiment; it's a material IP commitment to a highly speculative counterparty. Testing doesn't reduce risk here — it just starts the permanent license clock for no reliable upside.

3. No guarantees, no obligations, no safety net

The Terms place essentially all of the risk on the creator and almost none on the company. There is no obligation to preserve or return content: Digitalage may remove, delete, or stop hosting it at any time, with no duty to back it up or hand it back. There are no uptime, quality, or distribution guarantees — no SLA, no minimum reach, no promise of performance or availability. The company retains broad unilateral discretion to change terms, suspend accounts, or modify features at will. And the procedural terms tilt firmly in Digitalage's favor, with binding arbitration, a class-action waiver, a jury-trial waiver, and a one-year limitations period.

In plain terms: creators grant permanent, commercial rights, and the company promises nothing concrete in return — not reach, not stability, not continuity, not even storage.

4. Practical guidance for creators and professionals

For any creator, journalist, educator, or brand evaluating Digitalage, the conclusion is straightforward. Don't upload anything you aren't prepared to see permanently licensed, modified, and transferred by a financially distressed, privately controlled company. Don't rely on the marketing language about "ownership" or "rights you control" when the contract language grants the platform broad, perpetual rights instead. And don't treat this as a normal early-access beta risk — the combination of a perpetual, irrevocable, transferable license with name/likeness rights, no guarantees or obligations in return, and a financially and operationally fragile counterparty makes this structurally different from testing a typical startup product.

If you are serious about your catalog, your likeness, or your long-term licensing options, the clean conclusion is not to bind any content — core or "test" — to Digitalage under the current Terms of Service. For anything beyond casual commentary, creators should read the full Terms themselves and, where the stakes are meaningful, consult qualified counsel before granting any platform a perpetual, transferable license — especially one with no proven scale, no audited stability, and no clear path to honoring the value of what is being given to it.

what have you verified that you find lacking in substance?

Are there any legitimate posters on here?

THE OLD OWL 🦉🦉🦉

**It's a red flag for self-dealing and questionable valuation in a no-revenue microcap.** In standard U.S. GAAP (especially for OTC companies under Alternative Reporting), a parent like **Hop-on Inc. ($HPNN)** can record an "Investment in Subsidiary" (here, ~$6.5M–$6.7M in Digitalage) on its balance sheet. For a *wholly-owned* subsidiary, full consolidation is typically required under ASC 810—line-by-line assets, liabilities, revenues, and expenses of the sub flow into the parent's statements (with eliminations for intercompany items). Treating it as a non-consolidated "investment" (often at cost or equity method) while claiming it as a subsidiary raises issues: - **Funding source via officer accruals**: Critics (and forum analyses of the Q1 2026 filing) note the asset largely stems from converted unpaid officer compensation/ obligations (primarily to CEO Peter Michaels) rather than cash infusions, external equity/debt, or operations. No cash changed hands for the bulk of the valuation. This creates a circular, related-party dynamic: the same person approves salary accruals, converts them into equity/value in a private entity he controls, and books it as a major asset for the public shell. - **Valuation support**: With HPNN showing $1,187 cash, $0 revenue, ongoing net losses (~$172k in Q1 alone), and a massive accumulated deficit (~$32.8M), there's no independent appraisal, arm's-length investment, or revenue/traction evidence disclosed to back a $6.5M+ carrying value. Digitalage itself has no separate audited financials visible in public disclosures and operates on minimal infrastructure (e.g., Cloudflare free tier per skeptics). - **Disclosure and governance gaps**: Related-party transactions (loans, accruals, conversions) must be disclosed in detail under OTC/SEC rules. Undisclosed or opaque funding for operations (while paying ~$82.5k in officer comp in Q1) can constitute material omissions. The company's governance portal and filings emphasize Digitalage as wholly-owned, yet keep it non-consolidated to avoid exposing internals. This pattern—accruing high officer pay in a dormant shell, converting to "investment" equity in a private vehicle, and promoting the sub aggressively—is common in long-deficit OTC stories. It lets the officer extract value/liability relief while public shareholders bear dilution risk, judgment exposure (e.g., recent Woolen case not fully reflected), and zero operational upside if consolidation never materializes meaningfully. **Bottom line**: It's "well" within the realm of aggressive OTC accounting that prioritizes narrative over verifiable economics. Investors should demand full consolidation details, independent valuation, and related-party footnotes in future filings. High risk of overstatement; DYOR and treat as speculative. NFA.

Grok 4:53 a.m. CT 20260616

and a $7 trade to paint the tape.
No $ to market anything. Very little buying interest.
Shenanigans don't get the price high enough to allow him to cash-out his special preferred shares.

Digitalage is not running 29 native live broadcasts. It is aggregating TikTok’s existing multi-guest sessions and displaying them inside a single Digitalage-branded window.
Here is what that means in concrete, technical terms:
1. TikTok handles every broadcast — Digitalage handles only the display
Each of the 29 feeds is:
ingested by TikTok,
encoded by TikTok,
transcoded by TikTok,
distributed by TikTok’s CDN,
served from TikTok’s infrastructure,
managed by TikTok’s session controls.

Digitalage is simply pulling the video streams and arranging them visually.

This is not a broadcast platform. This is a multi-window viewer.

2. TikTok’s limits still apply — Digitalage is just stacking sessions
TikTok LIVE Multi-Guest supports up to 5 guests per session.

Digitalage is not expanding that limit. They are:
opening multiple TikTok sessions,
capturing each session’s output,
and placing them into a 29-tile layout.

This is client-side aggregation, not server-side capability.

It does not increase TikTok’s capacity. It does not demonstrate Digitalage infrastructure. It does not show platform scalability.

3. The “29 broadcasts” number is a display artifact, not a platform metric
Real platforms measure:
ingest capacity
transcoding throughput
concurrent stream limits

CDN load
origin server performance

QoS under scale

Digitalage has none of these.

“29” is simply the number of TikTok feeds they chose to display at once.

It is not:
29 Digitalage streams
29 Digitalage ingest points
29 Digitalage encoders
29 Digitalage CDN endpoints

It is 29 TikTok streams arranged in a grid.

4. Digitalage’s own infrastructure confirms this

A platform claiming “public media distribution” must have a CDN.

Digitalage does not.

http://digitalage.tv ? No CDN detected

No edge caching
No origin shielding
No streaming endpoints
No observable broadcast stack

A platform with zero CDN cannot deliver 29 simultaneous live broadcasts. TikTok can. Digitalage cannot.

5. The “blur is intentional” line is part of the pattern
“We are protecting unreleased tools and workflows before launch.”
This is year five of “protecting unreleased tools”:

2021: Fall launch

2023: closed beta
2024: year-end beta
2026: MVP

Today: “days away”
1,128 days of “days away.”

The blur is not protecting tools. It is protecting the fact that the infrastructure belongs to TikTok.

6. The financials make the technical claim impossible
June 15, 2026:
$1,187 cash
$0 revenue
$32.8M accumulated deficit
No CDN
No infrastructure
No filings showing Digitalage as an asset

A company with $1,187 is not running a multi-stream broadcast network. It is running TikTok windows.

7. The market’s response confirms it
Today’s Level 2:
Bid: 3,961,915 @ 0.0007
Ask: 6,549,778 @ 0.0009

If Digitalage had real infrastructure, the market would not be pricing the equity at seven-ten-thousandths of a dollar with a saturated ask wall.

Bottom Line
Digitalage is not running 29 live broadcasts. Digitalage is displaying 29 TikTok broadcasts.
TikTok built the infrastructure. TikTok handles the load. TikTok provides the CDN. Digitalage provides the window.

$HPNN public facing company
#SocialSafe
#OOve
#Digitalage privately held by Peter Michaels et al

That’s not “building the rails.” That’s borrowing the tracks.
NFA • DYOR • NLA • NBS

Using "free" tier server space?
No wonder it crashes with only internal low-volume testing.

Five Years of Imminent. A Documented Timeline.
$HPNN #Digitalage
In July 2021, Peter Michaels announced that Digitalage was "emerging from stealth mode, soon entering public beta testing, and on schedule to launch in the Fall of 2021." Features were described as locked in. AR filters, music integration, content protection, DRM. A Zoom webinar walked investors through the beta rollout. Fall 2021 came and went.
In 2022, press releases referenced an ongoing "closed beta stage" and described the platform as "highly anticipated." A Megatrax licensing deal was announced, positioning Digitalage as preparing for broader rollout into the creator economy. The closed beta never opened.
In March 2023, Michaels announced the "closed beta launch" of what was now described as a decentralized WEB3 social media platform. Influencers were being onboarded. Features were being refined. Michaels was the face of the announcement. The public launch did not follow.
In late 2024, the language shifted to acceleration. "$6 million in investments" and "imminent influx of additional funding" were cited as catalysts for fast-tracking the launch. A closed beta was targeted before year-end 2024. Advisory board additions were announced. A news feed technology was tied to rollout preparation. Year-end 2024 passed.
In early 2025 through early 2026, the framing evolved again — no longer beta, now "deployment." October 2025 brought governance restructuring described as preparation "ahead of the commercial rollout." November 2025 brought timelines for sample apps, demos, and alpha-beta testing. January 2026 brought an announced MVP launch. March through June 2026 brought "production-scale announcements" with apps described as in review and infrastructure described as live.
As of today the app is not publicly available in the Apple App Store or Google Play Store in any form matching the original 2021 promise. Today's post from the official @HPNN
account states that "Apple and Google approvals are getting closer" and that the platform is "moving from buildout to activation."
An X post in May 2026 — cited by @DeborahHat96840
— calculated 37 months and 1,128 days since the last announced launch date.
That is not a development timeline. That is a promotional cycle. The language changes. The framing evolves from beta to WEB3 to deployment to production-scale. But the destination never arrives. And the public company promoting all of it — Hop-On Inc., trading as $HPNN on the Expert Market — reported $1,187 cash on hand, $0 revenue, and $32.8 million in accumulated deficit in its most recent financials.
Digitalage is privately held by Peter Michaels. It is not consolidated in HPNN public filings. Shareholders have no documented equity stake in it.
Five years. Every quarter a new reason it's almost ready.
Do the math.
NFA DYOR NLA NBS

$HPNN public facing entity
#Digitalage
#SocialSafe
#OOve privately held by Peter Michaels, or Peter
Michaels and others

This is the reality of the framework you are working with. Not one filing recognizes the way a 100 percent wholly owned subsidiary exists that would make the public claims or assertions actionable by shareholders.
NFA NLA NBS

I’m a little disappointed in Michael’s. I questioned the lack of substance in his tweets like others have questioned him and he blocked me from future Replies to comments. I legitimately questioned the constant banter with no substance just like others have done. This does not give me much confidence in him or the project. Very disappointing. JMHO

THE OLD OWL 🦉🦉🦉

Important CaveatsLagging & whipsaw-prone: Crosses confirm trends after they've started. In sideways or choppy penny stocks, you can get repeated false signals ("whipsaws") that lead to losses if traded mechanically.

britannica.com

Not predictive on their own: For micro-caps like HPNN, fundamentals (revenue, dilution risk, promotion cycles) and volume matter far more than MA crosses. Many view these signals as noise in this category.

stockinvest.us

Better for context: Use with volume, price action, support/resistance, or other indicators. A Golden Cross on huge volume is more meaningful than one on a low-volume pop.

In short: Yes, it's possible and happens more often in this category than in blue-chip stocks. But treat it as one data point among many—especially with HPNN's high-risk profile. Always DYOR and consider position sizing carefully. NFA.

My OTC swing scanner flagged it this morning: DEATH_X. The 50-day moving average has crossed below the 200-day. Bearish long-term confirmation.
The technicals are catching up to the balance sheet:
$1,187 cash on hand
$0 revenue
$32.8M accumulated deficit
Woolen judgment: $382,268+ unrecorded
7.47 billion shares outstanding
Expert Market — restricted retail access
Five years. Zero delivered launches.

Yet the tape shows 148 volume spike days over four years. Short term runs on thin volume while the long term trend confirms structural decline.

That's not a growth pattern. That's a promotional cycle riding a dying chart.

Today's +12.50% move on 0.9x RVOL tells you everything about who's still in this stock and why.

$HPNN — Liability Vessel. Front-facing Public Co.
Privately held associates: #Digitalage #OOve #SocialSafe — solely controlled by Peter Michaels. Not consolidated in public filings.

Pattern of Promotion: 2021 2026 (Regulator-Grade Chronology)

NFA DYOR NLA NBS
by Deborah

@DeborahHat96840


$HPNN public face debt holder
#Digitalage is privately held by Michaels et al
#SocialSafe is privately held, controlled by Michaels
#OOve is privately held by Michaels et al

@GratwickEnt
Let's talk about transparency, let's talk about clarity, let's just talk. This is what transparency looks like. Pay attention.

@GratwickEnt
published a white paper. Not a press release. Not a promise. A white paper — with actual numbers, actual structure, and actual accountability baked into the model from the ground up.
Here's what laying it out there looks like:
Subscriptions — three tiers, publicly stated. $500 lifetime. $99 annual. $9.99 monthly. Target: 5,000 lifetime subscribers = $2.5M upfront to fund real productions. Not vaporware. A proof-of-concept film — Just Drive — already in motion.
Profit splits — documented to the percentage. After budget repayment and a 15% return to regional media funds: 70% to Creators. 10% to Fund. 10% to Gratwick. 5% to Minority Partners. 5% to Charity. Every stakeholder named. Every cut disclosed.
Reality programming revenue — live interactive streams surrounding productions turn what traditional Hollywood calls a "marketing cost" into a direct income stream. Profitability potentially achieved before a project even wraps.
Network fees — 3–5% on transactions across the entire platform network. The white paper models it plainly: 500 platforms at $500K annual volume = $250M network flow = $12.5M to Gratwick at 5%. Show your work. They did.
Additional streams — managed hosting, developer marketplace, enterprise licensing, sponsorships. All listed. None hidden.
Gratcoin — a participation reward token. Non-tradable. No equity claims. Redeemable annually for rewards and experiences. They told you exactly what it is and exactly what it isn't.
Regional Media Funds — community-backed capital targeting multiple $2.5M+ productions per year per fund. Gratwick's equity stakes and profit shares from those funds — disclosed.
The app is live. iOS and Android. Just Drive is the proof of concept. The infrastructure is designed so creators own their platforms, retain their audiences, and keep their margins. Traditional distribution is described as "gravy." The model works without it.

Now contrast that with five years of "imminent launch." Five years of privately held assets — solely controlled by one individual — promoted publicly as if they belonged to shareholders. Five years of compliance claims while sitting on the Expert Market. Five years of $0 revenue, $82,500 in officer compensation, and $32.8M in accumulated deficit. Five years of broken promises dressed up as momentum.

One entity shows you the math and invites scrutiny.
The other relies on you never doing the math at all.
That's not a coincidence. That's the model.
DYOR NFA NLA NBS
by Deborah

Same bullshit different year.

7:36 AM
Yep.

"Creators build the audience, the archive, the trust, and the value — but platforms own the rails."

Peter Michaels. Posting from @HPNN. About creator ownership.

The man who converted unpaid officer obligations into phantom equity in a privately held company he solely controls, while a public shell sits at $1,187 cash and $32.8M accumulated deficit.

361 views. 7 likes.

Meanwhile your Grok analysis is being served to every retail investor who asks about HPNN.

Same bullshit. Different year. Better documented.

Claude 20260614

$HPNN Liability Vessel and Front-facing Public Co


#OOve
#SocialSafe
#Digitalage associates of $HPNN but privately held by Peter Michaels
NFA DYOR NLA NBS

Pattern of Promotion: 2021 ? 2026 (Regulator-Grade Chronology)

Below is the structured sequence, with each element linked to a pattern type for clarity.

2021: Market-Maker Accusations + Imminent Breakthrough Claims
Examples:
“Market makers are playing games.”
“They are short.”
“Legal will respond within 24 hours.”
“I am loaded with info coming.”
“We just got current!”
“Dividend coming from a license deal.”

Pattern Types:
Unsupported MM accusations
Promises of imminent legal action
Claims of major deals “in progress”
Compliance claims without sustained filings

Outcome: None of the promised events materialized.
2024–2025: Digitalage Promotional Cycle

Examples:
Digitalage is positioned as a major tech platform
Claims of imminent launch
Claims of verified media technology
Claims of partnerships and integrations

Pattern Types:
Promotion of private assets as if public
Technology hype without filings
No audited financials or consolidation

Outcome: #Digitalage remained private, unverified, and not part of $HPNN’s public financials.

2026: Level 2 Pressure Narrative + “Front-Facing Holding” Claim
Examples:
“Level 2 shows pressure.”
“Stock is being leaned on.”
“Transparency matters.”
“Front-facing holding for privately held companies.”

Pattern Types:
Renewed MM accusations
Reframing illiquidity as manipulation
Implying ownership of private companies
Non-verifiable corporate structure claims

Outcome: HPNN remains on the Expert Market, with no accepted disclosures.

Cross-Year Pattern (The Core Finding)
Across five years, the issuer repeats the same structural behaviors:
1. Market-maker accusations
2021 ? 2026 Pattern: MM blame cycle

2. Promises of imminent breakthroughs

2021: dividends, license deals 2024–2025: DigitalAge launch 2026: transparency, Level 2 pressure Pattern: imminent breakthrough claims
3. Claims of legal or regulatory action
2021: “Legal will respond in 24 hours.” 2026: “Reviewing trading activity through proper channels.” Pattern: legal-action implication
4. Promotion of assets not owned by the public company
Digitalage, OOve, SocialSafe Pattern: private-asset association
5. Compliance claims contradicted by OTC Markets
2021: “We just got current!” 2026: Still on Expert Market Pattern: compliance-claim mismatch

Regulator-Grade Conclusion
The behavior is not episodic — it is systemic.
Across 2021 ? 2026, the issuer repeatedly:
makes unsupported market-maker accusations
promises imminent breakthroughs that never materialize
implies legal or regulatory action
promotes private companies as if they were public assets
claims compliance that is not reflected in OTC
Markets’ tiering
cycles through hype during periods of non-compliance

Why HPNN Cannot Afford Full Consolidation of Digitalage

If $HPNN were to consolidate Digitalage fully under ASC 810 — as required for a genuine wholly-owned subsidiary — every asset, liability, revenue, and expense of #Digitalage would appear line by line in HPNN's financial statements.

That creates an immediate problem. Digitalage has no disclosed revenue. Its $6.5M "asset value" was funded entirely through converted unpaid officer obligations — not cash, not investment, not operations. Full consolidation would expose exactly what Digitalage is: a shell funded by debt conversion with no commercial activity, controlled solely by Peter Michaels through a private Nevada corporation with no audited financials and no independent oversight.
The current "Investment in Digitalage" treatment keeps Digitalage's internals invisible. Full consolidation would make them undeniable.

The accounting choice isn't an oversight. It's a firewall.??NFA?
But hey, how 'bout those shorts????

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?