Asking APDL a question: what does "continuing OS development" mean if it isn't operating expenses/running costs/paying for a programmer's time? It certainly isn't using the money raised from the share issue to build an asset which could be realised (such as security for a loan). When "shares" in companies were first invented, there was an assumption that there would be a payback to the investors, I cannot think of anything (without seeing a prospectus) that would lead me to believe such a payback is likely with an investment in ROL. Do convince me otherwise.
Agreeing with Druck (for a change) when the USB2 upgrade appeared from Castle there was a simple "Buy it if you want". It wasn't essential to some people, but at least you could see what you were buying. That is very different from "pay us and you might get something".