You said, “stock is an asset”.  That is not true, a company’s stock is not listed as an asset, it is listed on the balance under stockholders equity, and assets = liabilities + stockholders equity. 

Beyond that the rest of the majority of this post is (I hate to say it) also a lot of ‘mumbo-jumbo’ that is not accurate.  If a liability exists (related to warrants) it should be accounted for as such, per gaap, and an accountant cannot issue an unqualified opinion unless the statements are issued under gaap.  You seem to be intentionally intertwining gaap and otc/stock exchange rules, as though an accounting firm can issue statements one way if the company is otc, but another way if they are not.  That is not how accountants/auditors function.  GAAP will be followed for the financial statements or the auditing firm will not issue an unqualified statement.  If the FASB changes its interpretation and guidelines for the treatment of a particular accounting issue – i.e. warrants, then it is becomes obligatory for a public entity to follow and if restatements are necessary due to such then so be it; and PTSC has done so. 

I have not formulated an opinion on the ‘accumulator theory’, but tossing around confusing vagaries and inaccurate accounting statements to support the theory is probably not the way to win subscribers, although it can make for interesting reading.

I hope I am not being overly critical, but I just see a lot of very loose ends here.

Best