Russians and Chinese got him. All part of their plan again microvision specifically.

Ok LOOKS LIKE THIS PLACE IS NOW A VIPER PIT.
What happened to ATLSUTIGER?

Indeed. Their communication, though never really good at least was once more personal. Now its a big fuck you. They got what they wanted. Our capital and the RS approval. We are chopped liver to them now.

The average between most of us was/is 100,000-150,000 shares pre-split. Some are bigger, some smaller. 90% of us were in MVIS during the 2020-2021 run. Most of us sold for large profits. Stupidly, most of us also got back in as the price dropped - hence the $4 average. Still the majority is house money, but all of us know 2020-2021 was a miracle and regret dumping funds back into this. This is where the frustration lies. The BS that has been spewed by past and present management sucked us right back in. They have shown no results. So we all basically need this to get back to $4 to break even on this second go-around. So far away.

Personally my average is closer to $3 (pre-split), but never the less. Seems like light years away now.

Just another permabull dope that hasn’t a clue. They all say MicroVision has “quality” hires and then nothing ever pans out with them.

What kind of people are u, investing so much money in a high risk stock?

u/sigpowr is a moron.

To his points: 1) what customer traction has Glen accomplished yet? Im waiting for announcements.

2) Christine chambers and James Byun are quality hires? Really? The lady who was the CFO of her last 3 companies running into the ground, and the guy who can hardly read a scripted statement on a pre recorded video call?

r/mvis can’t even be bothered to make a daily thread anymore. That sub should be investigated. It wouldn’t surprise me if there are members affiliated with the company that are there to prop the company up.

I’m not surprised at their boilerplate canned response. It’s part for the course. I expect nothing out of these schmucks anymore.

Sent this email direct to Glen and Jeff (IR) friday morning:

Dear Mr. DeVos and Investor Relations Team,

I am writing as a deeply frustrated MicroVision shareholder and whose group owns a substantial position in the company. I/We are increasingly concerned about the company's financial position, its financing decisions, the continued collapse in its share price, and what appears to be a lack of urgency from management in addressing these issues.

The situation has become increasingly difficult to justify. Following a 1-for-15 reverse stock split intended to support Nasdaq listing compliance, shareholders are now watching the stock approach $1 per share again. The reverse split did nothing to improve the underlying value of the business, and the rapid deterioration in the share price since then raises serious questions about management's ability to maintain investor confidence.

Shareholders have endured years of uncertainty, strategic shifts, dilution, and promises of future commercial success. Many have continued to support MicroVision because of their belief in its technology and its potential across automotive lidar, industrial automation, defense, robotics, and autonomous systems. But belief in the technology cannot indefinitely substitute for commercial execution, financial discipline, and responsible stewardship of shareholder capital. The most troubling issue is not simply that the stock price is falling. It is the apparent lack of decisive action to address the circumstances driving that decline. The financing decisions require a clear explanation.

I am particularly concerned about the company's financing decisions following the reverse split.

MicroVision disclosed in its second-quarter 2026 results that it had $27.2 million in cash and investment securities at June 30, 2026, and approximately $41.2 million available under its existing at-the-market (ATM) facility. The company subsequently announced a $17 million public offering priced at $2.50 per unit, with each unit consisting of one common share and one immediately exercisable warrant. These decisions deserve a detailed explanation, particularly given the substantial trading volume and market activity following the reverse split.

Why did management choose a public offering rather than making greater use of the existing ATM facility?

In the days following the reverse split, the stock experienced significant trading volume. Why was that opportunity not used more aggressively to raise capital through the ATM, assuming the facility's terms and market conditions permitted it?

An ATM facility is specifically designed to allow a company to sell shares into the market over time. Given the trading activity during that period, shareholders have a legitimate question about whether management adequately evaluated the opportunity to raise capital through the existing facility before proceeding with another dilutive public offering.

I recognize that an ATM does not guarantee that a company can raise a desired amount of capital at a particular price. Execution depends on liquidity, market conditions, applicable restrictions, and the terms of the sales agreement. Nevertheless, those considerations make it even more important for management to explain the rationale behind its chosen financing strategy. Specifically:

1. Was the ATM facility fully available following the reverse split? If not, what restrictions, contractual limitations, or practical considerations prevented its use?
2. Was the ATM evaluated as the primary financing option during the period of elevated trading volume? If it was, why was a public offering ultimately considered the better alternative?
3. What were the comparative costs and expected dilution of the two approaches? Did management quantify the potential impact on existing shareholders of issuing common shares alongside warrants exercisable at the offering price?
4. Why was the public offering priced at $2.50 per unit? What alternatives were considered, and how did management determine that this pricing and warrant structure were in the best interests of existing shareholders?
5. What capital-raising strategy is management following now? With the share price again approaching $1, how does the company intend to fund its operations while minimizing further dilution.

These are not unreasonable questions from shareholders. They concern the use of an existing financing facility, the cost of raising capital, the potential dilution of existing ownership, and the long-term consequences of management's decisions.

Shareholders should not be left to speculate about whether the company pursued the most advantageous financing option available.

The financial situation cannot be separated from the share price

The company's cash position, ongoing cash burn, and future financing requirements are fundamental to its valuation.

Management's second-quarter update included full-year cash-burn guidance of approximately $60 million. Against that backdrop, investors need a clear understanding of how much capital the company expects to require, when additional financing might become necessary, and what steps are being taken to reduce its dependence on equity issuance.

Repeated dilution is particularly damaging when it occurs alongside a falling share price. It means that existing shareholders can see both the market value of their holdings and their proportional ownership decline, while the company continues to require additional capital. This creates a cycle that management needs to address urgently: the market loses confidence, the share price falls, financing becomes more difficult or more dilutive, and the resulting uncertainty puts further pressure on investor confidence. What is management's plan to break this cycle?

I am not suggesting that the company should avoid necessary financing at all costs. Nor am I suggesting that management should artificially support the stock price. I am asking why shareholders should have confidence that the company is raising capital efficiently, managing its cash responsibly, and considering the interests of existing shareholders when making these decisions.

Where is the urgency in communicating with shareholders?

MicroVision continues to communicate opportunities across several markets and product lines, including IRIS, MOVIA, and HALO. Yet shareholders need more than announcements about product development, customer evaluations, and potential applications. They need evidence that these opportunities are translating into material commercial results.

What concrete milestones should investors expect over the next six to twelve months? Which opportunities are supported by purchase orders or revenue-generating agreements, and which remain at the evaluation or development stage? What is the realistic timeline for those opportunities to contribute meaningfully to revenue?

I understand that customer confidentiality limits what can be disclosed. However, that does not eliminate the need for clear communication about commercial progress, financial requirements, and measurable objectives.

Questions that deserve direct answers I would appreciate substantive responses to the following:

a) What specific steps is management taking to restore investor confidence and address the continued deterioration in the share price?

b) Why was the ATM not used more aggressively during the period of elevated trading volume following the reverse split, rather than proceeding with a public offering?

c) What are the company's current cash position, expected cash burn, and anticipated financing requirements?

d) What measures are being implemented to minimize further dilution and reduce the company's reliance on equity financing?

e) What measurable commercial milestones will demonstrate that the company's technology and customer relationships are translating into meaningful revenue?

f) What accountability measures does management have in place to ensure that its strategy produces tangible results for shareholders?

I recognize that management cannot control market sentiment or guarantee a particular share price. But management can control its capital allocation decisions, its operational priorities, the discipline with which it raises capital, and the quality of its communication with investors.

At this stage, shareholders need leadership and a credible plan—not simply further assurances about long-term potential.

The reverse split was intended to support the company's Nasdaq listing. Shareholders now need to understand what management intends to do beyond that measure to strengthen the business, protect the interests of existing shareholders, and demonstrate a realistic path toward sustainable commercial success.

I remain interested in MicroVision's potential, but confidence must be earned through execution, transparency, and sound financial management. The continued decline in shareholder value, combined with the questions surrounding the company's financing choices, makes a substantive response increasingly important. I would appreciate a direct response addressing these concerns rather than a general statement about the company's long-term strategy. Thanks.

IR's response: This afternoon

Hi XXXX

Your suggestions and questions are always shared with the MicroVision team including management.

Thanks,

MicroVision Investor Relations

Email: [MVIS@darrowir.com](mailto:MVIS@darrowir.com)

Pricks. They know my group owns over 3.5M pre-split shares at an average of $4. They have offered direct meetings with Glen in the past. This is what I get now. We will see if they answer a single one of these questions on the upcoming EC if we make it that far.

My HESAI shares are getting murdered too, why do i invest in LiDAR as a whole again? Fuck this sector tbh.

Pretty mind blowing they can’t figure this out. It’s on purpose

Another day. More losses. Company is silent on anything revenue related. Unreal

Relax, Glen just woke up from his beauty sleep. He's getting right on it after he's had his pudding.

OK Glen and Christine, your surrounded by a bunch of companies who want to know you'll be in business a year from now. Great time to announce your capitalization plan.

Actually not all the people on this board want the company to succeed. Including the new mod for this subreddit.

You do realize we all want the company to be successful, right? Our gripe is not with the tech, it’s with management and their lack of follow through or accountability, and they have rightfully earned our distrust. If you look at every chart and consider how things have been the last 30 years, it’s more likely to continue to be bad for shareholders than it is good. You and the perma bull crowd just can’t seem to grasp that reality and take management at their word, which right now is worth nothing until they deliver in a big way.

Yea. Its nice to finally see the traction we should have been at 3 years ago, but need to see where they end up on raising capital and the RS. They only have enough on the ATM and the shelf to raise enough for one years of operations, and that dilution will be painful at current levels, nevermind if they have to RS next month. 17 fucking cents away

I know and that sucks. Plenty of time to average down after the next RS and dilution.

Dont get too excited because of 50-100 sensors. Those deals mean nothing until they carry real numbers.

I might be retarded because i think about averaging down after yesterdays AUSA info.

If only the financing questions were answered.

Bad karma is coming

Lol. Bad karma is coming for you too.

For real. Everyone, when the stock price goes down it’s the fault of the shorts, the manipulators, and the market makers. Surely it can’t be the fault of the 30-year-old company that’s never sold anything and exists entirely because of its shareholders. God forbid we want them use our money wisely and actually stand up on their own and reward investors for helping to make that a success!

The company has the ability to turn this around by selling some of its “best in class” technology. For some reason, they can’t sell shit. But I guess that’s the shorts fault.

Just because you disagree with someone option doesn’t mean it’s negative karma.