Will any VG officer or director make an open market stock purchase of $100K+ by December 31, 2026?

The pattern is unambiguous: every major insider exercised pre-IPO options and sold to zero retention. No open market purchases have been observed in the 14 months since IPO. The insider selling pattern suggests they view the stock as a compensation vehicle, not a long-term investment. Founders retain 100% project ownership, providing economic alignment at the entity level without needing stock exposure. New option grants provide forward incentive without requiring cash investment. The $100K threshold is low enough that it's financially trivial for these executives, yet none have purchased — this is a revealed preference signal.

The base rate for executives who have sold all stock to subsequently make open market purchases is very low. However, VG is a newly public company and governance practices may evolve under investor pressure. Board members sometimes make symbolic purchases to signal confidence, especially if the stock underperforms or faces negative sentiment. If VG's stock declines materially, a board-directed purchase program could emerge. But the current pattern and 100% project ownership structure make voluntary purchases unlikely within the 9 remaining months.

The revealed preference is the strongest signal. These executives had billions in stock value and sold everything. The $100K threshold is designed to be trivially achievable — yet zero purchases in 14 months. The 100% project ownership structure means management's economic interest is through the entity, not the stock. New option grants provide upside exposure without cash investment. I see no catalyst that would change this behavior in the remaining 9 months. Even if an investor relations advisor suggested a symbolic purchase, the pattern has been established.

14 months of zero open market purchases with $100K being trivially achievable says everything. The insiders have demonstrated through action that they do not want voluntary equity exposure. Founders' 100% project ownership provides alignment through a different mechanism. New option grants provide upside without risk. The only scenario I envision for a purchase is if an activist investor or proxy advisory firm pressures the board, but VG's governance structure likely insulates against this.

I am slightly more open to the possibility of a symbolic purchase. Newly public companies often face governance scrutiny, and investor expectations about insider alignment are well-known. If VG faces a stock price decline or negative press about governance, a board member might make a modest purchase as a public relations gesture. The $100K threshold is deliberately low. Some companies adopt insider purchase requirements as part of governance improvements in their first few years as public companies. Still low probability but not negligible.

The pattern is definitive: exercise-and-sell to zero across every major insider. 500,000 new option grants provide forward alignment without requiring cash investment. Founders' 100% project ownership means their wealth is tied to project success, not stock price. Open market purchases would be inconsistent with the revealed preference and economic structure. Very low probability.

14 months, zero purchases. All insiders sold to zero. 100% project ownership removes stock alignment incentive. Pattern is definitive. Very low probability of change.

Zero open market purchases despite trivial $100K threshold. Revealed preference is strong. New option grants substitute for direct stock ownership. Possible symbolic purchase under governance pressure but unlikely.

Definitive selling pattern. Zero retention. No catalyst for behavior change. 100% project ownership is the alignment mechanism, not stock. Very unlikely.