TraderZero @_TraderZero_

I'm aware. Ill make it clear. The 1/23 S-1 filing was the live registration-review context and it carried the TRCH valuation. The 11/2022 10-K was the problem inside that review. Why? Because TRCH financial statements were the foundation for the offering and the incorporating financials. You can follow where the revised numbers hit all 3 batches. That is why the SEC correspondence ]10K captioned to the July 23 10-K, while the practical issue still reaches directly into the S-1. Since i just looked at them, its worse than I said it was. The October 31, 2024 SEC comment letter is the smoking gun. Staff expressly said NBH’s 2022 accounting presentation appeared contrary to the pro forma financial information in the incorporating Form S-1 that became effective November 18, 2022 when they became NBH. SEC Staff challenged the entire core accounting structure: - NBH wrongly split 2022 into predecessor/successor periods and stepped up the oil-and-gas assets to a sketchy fair value “as if” there had been an acquisition, even though the Staff viewed the spin-off as returning the same economic interests to the same legacy holders from TRCH. Then Staff uncovered an obvious numbers contradiction: NBH assigned roughly $77.6M (torchlight valuation) of value to the oil-and-gas properties at the December 2022 spin-off, that value was fully impaired to $0 about two weeks later. So the 10-K comments do not mean the S-1 was irrelevant. It means the SEC attacked the financial-statement foundation the S-1 relied to be approved.

$MMTLP ICYMI -> #NBH posted all of the S-1 correspondence with the SEC on the S-1 filing and they are worth reading. sec.gov/edgar/search/#… They prove that NBH filings were materially deficient in financial reporting, the A series share ownership, and McCabe's loan stack among, the deals to acquire wildcat, orogrande valuation and several other things. The takeaways: 1. NBH posted the red herring initial S-1 on 1/23/23, then delayed it on 1/31/23. NBH held it in delayed status by their own choice ans formally submitted it to the SEC until July 26, 2024. ≈536 days NBH delayed formally submitting the S-1 to the SEC 2. The SEC's first feedback letter was filed 9/20/24 after significant accounting data was complete. That's ≈631 days, about 50% of the all time record. Please send a partipation trophy to Next Bridge. 3. Next Bridge determined the Orogrande needed to be impaired to $0 two weeks after the spin off and initial asset valuation was reported as $77 million. Citing that they used MMATs asset valuation upfront and determined they wouldn't be able to meet the obligations. They had to revise the language from "due accounting firm determined" to "management deternined" that the valuation was $0. The SEC inquiry was post hoc, debunking the claims that the SEC made them do it. 4. The SEC completed their review of the S-1 on 9/30/25 , cutting the total time to 376 days. 4. Next Bridge delayed it again from 1/29/26 to 5/19/26 as they continued to repair their Financials in five filed amendments not requiring SEC review. Subtract 111 days to bring the historical landmark victory to 265 days. 5. There were a total of 7 legit rounds of SEC reviews over that ≈ 9 month span, driven by Next Bridge as they corrected their financial and corporate structure. 6. Names Brda as the owner of Wildcat and reveals McCabe is invested in Brda's Olivan Advisors, rebranded as PacWest Partners. 7. SEC auditor inquired strongly that Preferred A shareholders issued the dividend at the MMAT merger were shafted by the two-week $77M to $0 asset impairment, NBH dissmisssd the OG TRCH shareholders as MMAT shareholders who were a minority of the base, they had no rights to the assets from TRCH.

$MMTLP 100% accurate. Every claim backed by an SEC filing. x.com/i/grok/share/5…

Keith @Kasshiza

2 weeks ago

Why do you try so hard to spread false info. So sad. You are going to be right next to @CGasparino lmao sucks to be you

2 0 0 1K 0

@PuzzledRaccoon Filing entity says Next Bridge, I don't see anything that says the SEC filed them.

This stock traded for 12 months at $1.50 VWAP, October 10, 2021 to October 3 2022, then gained 750% from October 3, 2022 to November 21, 2022. Show me on this chart where you would sell this short? The answer is shorts got wrecked on this trade if they borrowed shares any time before 11/21 and didnt close before $2.90 or before 12/8, the last day $MMTLP traded with the dividend share attached. Shorts were absolutely margin called on the run to $12. This was a no trade for shorts until 11/21 and it was only in play for 10 trading days. Those who sold short caught the evening star on declining volume and exited before the halt. Naked shorts aren't immune from the tape, their sold volume hits it and the volume doesn't lie. The FOMO diamond hands longs are bagged . There is no resolution process to bail out retail traders who make bad trades. Retail traders orchestrated the retail pump squeeze perfectly. The chart is textbook. The volume doesn't support the bagged claims. Anyone who thinks otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Thread 1/15 $MMTLP / $NBH Two articles. One is pure cult fiction and the other introduces wild ass deep state conspiracy theories. Both are ridiculous. Here is the breakdown: @KarmaCollects article claims Next Bridge’s S-1 saga was “roughly 3 years and 4 months (~1,221 days) of regulatory limbo” and “the record for the longest delay of any non-abandoned S-1 in recent market history.” Insane claim considering its not tracked. NBH did not spend 1,221 days in pure SEC limbo. Based on the company’s own timeline, it took about five months just to replace Borgers and get the first re-audited/restated financials back on file, and roughly another year to keep cleaning up the restated financial package that ultimately supported the effective offering. To fully stabilize the financial package used in the final offering documents, it was roughly 15 to 16 months from the SEC’s May 3, 2024 Borgers fraud enforcement action to NBH’s May 28, 2026 live 424B3 prospectus, which included audited 2025/2024 financials and restated Q1 2026 financials. The SEC’s May 3, 2024 order barred BF Borgers and its owner over “massive fraud” affecting more than 1,500 filings, and NBH’s later prospectus package shows it was still carrying “as restated” financial statements into May 2026. Real oppressive SEC. I did find one example of a long term S-1 in less than five minutes: $FSHP's June 21, 2024 8-K says its Form S-1 (File No. 333-261028) was initially filed on November 12, 2021 and declared effective on June 17, 2024. That is about 948 days from initial filing to effectiveness. That isn't really the story though. It's the "why" that Drew leaves out of his fantasy. What actually happened is simpler and uglier.

Okay folks, no, this is not “stock market history.” It is a cash-burning shell trying to monetize a three-year saga with heavy dilution while the same insider orbit keeps capturing debt claims, preferred seniority, subordination protections, consulting compensation, and project-side economics. There isn't a sane person who would pay 15 bucks a pop for that trash. The articles want readers to see Greg McCabe as a victim-hero who fought regulators to save shareholders. His actions (or lack of any action) and the filings show something else: a company with almost no assets, a massive liability stack, no public market, a fantasy $15 offering price untethered from value, and a first-priority capital raise designed to clean up family-orbit financing before anything else. That is not redemption. That's not reconcilliation. That is extraction. Period. ✌️#TeamTZ

Now the cult is doubling down with fresh conspiracy porn. The latest “article” from @MindandEmotion7 ties the 2022 FINRA halt to Epstein, Richard Branson, Soros, John Mack, Morgan Stanley, Pequot Capital, globalist judges, the Trilateral Commission, and even BBBYQ. It claims Howard Meyerson emailed three specific SEC people to “illegally halt” $MMTLP as part of a massive cover-up. For fucks sake people, this is now an Epstein-orchestrated globalist plot? The filings, math, and three-year timeline don’t support the squeeze, so let's pivot to “it’s all connected to Epstein and the deep state.” What a fucking lunatic.

@irishcorkman78 @MindandEmotion7 absolutley

Too much garbage being posted on this topic. Here's the legit read on $VIX The VIX isn’t a stock or ETF — it’s the market’s fear gauge. Its underlying is the S&P 500 Index options market (specifically SPX options). VIX is calculated from SPX option prices and represents expected S&P 500 volatility over the next 30 days. It doesn’t predict direction, it shows how much movement traders are pricing in. When VIX spikes, SPX protection is usually being bid aggressively. That’s why Friday’s move matters. $VIX closed at 21.51, up +39.68%. Clear volatility expansion and risk-off warning. What stood out: • Daily: breakout from volatility compression • 1H: aggressive expansion above EMA 5/10/20 • 15M: clean trend, shallow pullbacks, dips defended • 5M: stair-step continuation into the close VPA read: strong effort, strong result. Order-flow proxy: protection bids + hedging aggression. Key levels I’m watching: • Above 21.57 = volatility continuation • Hold above 20.20–20.65 = fear stays in control • Lose 20.20 = first cooling signal • Below 19.05 = intraday vol unwind • Below 17.25–17.40 = spike likely failed / resetting For Monday: pairing SPY daily + SPY 15M + VIX 15M. Bearish confirmation: SPY loses support while VIX holds above 20.20 and pushes through 21.57. Bullish relief: VIX rejects 21.57, loses 20.20, and SPY reclaims key levels on volume. Friday’s VIX move says traders were aggressively paying for protection into the close.

$MMTLP No it doesn't do that at all. Its strictly procedural. This simply moves the offering from a preliminary S-1/A to a live 424(b)(3) prospectus. Same 40M shares. Same $15 fantasy price. Same no-market/no-DTC reality. Same first-priority use of proceeds: payoff Greg Jr.'s Panther Bridge investors.

TradingSecrets @TradingSecrets7

3 weeks ago

$MMTLP Next Bridge Hydrocarbons submits an update to the S1 under SEC Rule 424(b)(3). The purpose of this is to present new information that represents a material change or expansion of information previously disclosed and to update investors with this information.

3 55 160 12K 12

RDOs usually close with about 25% sold. The debt service will absorb most if not all of it. $MMTLP / $NBH's real math is ugly. Check it out: Torchlight’s best revenue year was roughly $5.45M. NBH’s current liabilities are roughly $62M. That means NBH would need ~11.4x Torchlight’s best annual revenue just to cover current liabilities at a fantasy 100% margin. At more realistic O&G cash margins, the revenue hurdle looks more like: • 60% margin: ~$104M revenue • 50% margin: ~$124M revenue • 40% margin: ~$155M revenue • 30% margin: ~$207M revenue That is roughly 19x–38x Torchlight’s best year. Next Bridge will never generate the revenue to be profitablr. It is a pass through shell to drive cash to McCabes family.