BRN Discussion Ongoing

[Tothemoon24]

Alright. Let’s imagine you personally employed Sean as the CEO of your company and were conducting his annual performance review. How would you rate his performance over the past 12 months, on a scale of 1 to 10?

3

 

[Getupthere]

@7für7

Wow, so the guy openly admits he has no real opinion of his own, but has no problem labeling shareholders as lazy couch potatoes stuffing their faces with pizza? That’s rich. Dismissing legitimate criticism by insulting the very people who own the company

No one’s asking for Sean to be a magician—but we do expect transparency, accountability, and results after years of promises. Instead, we get deflection, NDA smokescreens, and a fan club that defends poor performance by attacking anyone who dares speak up.

Calling that “entrepreneurial thinking”? Please. It’s just more spin. And if defending your vote requires insulting your fellow shareholders, maybe it’s not the rest of us with the negative attitude.

 

[Wags]

My thoughts right now Get are ones of concern.

For mine, the announcement that Brainchip was considering moving to a US listing was a genuine shock. I contacted the company about my concerns, which centred around the following premise…that unless there was at least one major revenue generating deal announced, that would increase the share price significantly, then it would be grossly premature to move to a US listing. I added that existing shareholders value would be destroyed if the company moved without at least one major revenue producing deal in the kit bag.

The response from the company shocked me even more than their original announcement to consider moving. I was told, that because of the ASX disclosure rules, a major deal may never happen. I was told that the entities Brainchip was dealing with might never do business with us whilst we were listed on the ASX, because they were not prepared to risk being forced to reveal financial details, and information about how they were going to use our IP.

This prompted my discussions with the ASX about their interpretation of their very own disclosure rules, particularly rule 3.1A. They told me very clearly, that if Brainchip and a customer wanted to maintain confidentiality about a deal they were contemplating, then the onus was on both parties to remain silent about it. As long as confidentiality remained, there was no requirement to disclose the deal…it could remain confidential under ASX disclosure rule 3.1A.

When I told the company this, I used both the unnecessary Ford ASX announcement back in May 2020, that most likely caused Ford to end their collaboration with us, and Mercedes self outing themselves with press releases in January 2022, which has caused complete silence from them about us ever since.

Love them or hate them…after my discussions with the ASX, I cannot believe that the company would consider a premature, highly damaging for existing shareholders move to a US listing, because of the ASX disclosure rules.

Call me a conspiracy theorist…but I believe there is another agenda .

So these are my thoughts right now Get.

Given what you state was the response from the company, in red above, the scary thought that this implies to me, is that there is not a major deal with revenue, anytime soon unfortunately.
And as far as the podcast goes, and the $68K consultant fee's, faaaaark.
I have been, and still am, pro Brainchip company, just getting tired of the mushroom compost in my eyes.

 

[Bravo]

My thoughts right now Get are ones of concern.

For mine, the announcement that Brainchip was considering moving to a US listing was a genuine shock. I contacted the company about my concerns, which centred around the following premise…that unless there was at least one major revenue generating deal announced, that would increase the share price significantly, then it would be grossly premature to move to a US listing. I added that existing shareholders value would be destroyed if the company moved without at least one major revenue producing deal in the kit bag.

The response from the company shocked me even more than their original announcement to consider moving. I was told, that because of the ASX disclosure rules, a major deal may never happen. I was told that the entities Brainchip was dealing with might never do business with us whilst we were listed on the ASX, because they were not prepared to risk being forced to reveal financial details, and information about how they were going to use our IP.

This prompted my discussions with the ASX about their interpretation of their very own disclosure rules, particularly rule 3.1A. They told me very clearly, that if Brainchip and a customer wanted to maintain confidentiality about a deal they were contemplating, then the onus was on both parties to remain silent about it. As long as confidentiality remained, there was no requirement to disclose the deal…it could remain confidential under ASX disclosure rule 3.1A.

When I told the company this, I used both the unnecessary Ford ASX announcement back in May 2020, that most likely caused Ford to end their collaboration with us, and Mercedes self outing themselves with press releases in January 2022, which has caused complete silence from them about us ever since.

Love them or hate them…after my discussions with the ASX, I cannot believe that the company would consider a premature, highly damaging for existing shareholders move to a US listing, because of the ASX disclosure rules.

Call me a conspiracy theorist…but I believe there is another agenda .

So these are my thoughts right now Get.

Thanks for sharing, @Realinfo.

The issue with ASX disclosure rules really needs to be clarified at the AGM, in my opinion. The "ASX rules" explanation is starting to feel like a manufactured excuse for why major revenue deals are absent, rather than a valid operational barrier.

Why is it that Weebit doesn't seem to face the same issues? So far, Coby Hannoch hasn't suggested that WBT needs to redomicile to the US because of concerns around ASX-induced confidentiality breaches. On the contrary, Coby has stated he expects another five agreements to be signed before the end of the year. In addition, I believe final signings with 3 fabs and 3 customers are all now being linked to payment incentives as a demonstration of management's confidence.

I find it very hard to swallow the excuse that ASX disclosure rules are the reason a major deal might never come to pass. BrainChip has operated under a complete cone of silence for years now. Isn't that, in itself, proof enough for potential partners to have confidence that confidentiality would be maintained — precisely because absolutely nothing has been announced?

Aside from which, as you mentioned, ASX Rule 3.1A specifically allows confidentiality if negotiations are ongoing and if the information remains confidential. As this has been independently confirmed with the ASX, it undermines BrainChip's argument completely.

 

[jtardif999]

For starters, I'm not going back to look at the value of how much the executive team get paid but going to use fictional numbers.

I know this would never happen but how cool would it be for people like our CEO to say I know I am entitled to $4mil worth of shares but I'll only take 4 million shares instead of the 16mil I could be entitled to at 25c a share. This is because with all the things that are lined up I am confident those 4 Mil shares will be worth way more than $4 mil within the next year.

Something like that would give me faith that we are in the path to success. Right now all I hear when they talk is we're full of sht and will say anything to try and make you happy.

Last year's AGM Sean made a speech which I bought into 100% which now looks like a big ball of fluff.

I’ve always thought that BOD should receive a set amount of shares rather than the dollar value of shares, since dollar value encourages a lower share price for longer while they accumulate.

 

[Bravo]

Clearly he doesn’t know the current position of Brainchip, so I take this with a grain of salt. We are moving into commercial this year

The point concerned widespread usage and large-scale revenue. I don't think it was intended to suggest that there would be no revenue whatsoever.

 

[Getupthere]

I’ve always thought that BOD should receive a set amount of shares rather than the dollar value of shares, since dollar value encourages a lower share price for longer while they accumulate.

Totally agree. A fixed number of shares would actually align their interests with shareholders—right now, the system rewards them more the lower the price goes. It’s backwards.

And yep, I remember that chairman’s gem of a quote—“the share price will do what the share price will do.” That pretty much sums up the level of accountability we’ve been getting.

 

[Smoothsailing]

The point concerned widespread usage and large-scale revenue. I don't think it was intended to suggest that there would be no revenue whatsoever.

I agree Bravo, I am at the point however we’re any doubt is going to get an ear full from me as I have had it with all the doubters . I have Ten years invested to date
Go brainchip

 

[White Horse]

My thoughts right now Get are ones of concern.

For mine, the announcement that Brainchip was considering moving to a US listing was a genuine shock. I contacted the company about my concerns, which centred around the following premise…that unless there was at least one major revenue generating deal announced, that would increase the share price significantly, then it would be grossly premature to move to a US listing. I added that existing shareholders value would be destroyed if the company moved without at least one major revenue producing deal in the kit bag.

The response from the company shocked me even more than their original announcement to consider moving. I was told, that because of the ASX disclosure rules, a major deal may never happen. I was told that the entities Brainchip was dealing with might never do business with us whilst we were listed on the ASX, because they were not prepared to risk being forced to reveal financial details, and information about how they were going to use our IP.

This prompted my discussions with the ASX about their interpretation of their very own disclosure rules, particularly rule 3.1A. They told me very clearly, that if Brainchip and a customer wanted to maintain confidentiality about a deal they were contemplating, then the onus was on both parties to remain silent about it. As long as confidentiality remained, there was no requirement to disclose the deal…it could remain confidential under ASX disclosure rule 3.1A.

When I told the company this, I used both the unnecessary Ford ASX announcement back in May 2020, that most likely caused Ford to end their collaboration with us, and Mercedes self outing themselves with press releases in January 2022, which has caused complete silence from them about us ever since.

Love them or hate them…after my discussions with the ASX, I cannot believe that the company would consider a premature, highly damaging for existing shareholders move to a US listing, because of the ASX disclosure rules.

Call me a conspiracy theorist…but I believe there is another agenda .

So these are my thoughts right now Get.

Hi Realinfo,
Who was it that you contacted in the company.?
And how detailed was the response you received to your concerns.?

 

[hotty4040]

Haven't listened yet but this feels like they've finally heard the complaints around visibility of the non execs who get shares for what looks like fuck all and their response is to wheel them out for a podcast episode a month before the AGM. Seems desperate.
Perhaps my mood will change after listening lol.

You haven't missed much IMO, however, surely we're going to have another update before the AGM ?, otherwise, we're still in the dark, ( comprehensively ) IMHO. Your mood, may change, however, not sure whether it will be upbeat/downbeat. I'm now wobbling on the fence, not knowing which way I'll fall off. Akida Ballista >> Don't know/Maybe. Still hopeful, ( Just )

hotty...

 

[jrp173]

View attachment 82749


Edge AI is literally taking off— into orbit.
Over the last few years we’ve seen satellites move from simply collecting data to actually thinking in space. A brand‑new study out this week showcases just how far the hardware‑and‑algorithm stack has come—and why the next wave of intelligent devices, from CubeSats to wearables, will look very different.
What’s new?

* ResNet‑GLUSE: a lightweight convolutional network that marries squeeze‑and‑excitation blocks with gated linear units.
* 94 – 98 % accuracy on EuroSAT & PatternNet while slashing parameters (‑33×), FLOPs (‑27×) and model size (‑33×) vs MobileViT.
* On‑chip inference on Brainchip’s Akida neuromorphic processor draws just ~0.85 W—orders of magnitude below typical GPUs. arXiv
* Open‑source SENTRY repo (link in the paper) lets teams retrain or port the model to their own edge hardware in minutes.

Why it matters:

* Always‑on autonomy
* Continuous links from Starlink & OneWeb solve the connectivity gap, but not the latency gap. Pushing compute into the payload means a satellite can re‑task itself on the fly—think disaster response or precision agriculture updates in the same orbit.
* Millijoule‑class power budgets
* Early missions like ESA’s Φ‑Sat‑1 proved the concept with Intel’s Movidius Myriad‑2 VPU. eoportal.org

The leap to neuromorphic silicon like Akida (sub‑watt inference) takes that efficiency several steps further. Brainchip's "Design Once, Deploy Everywhere"
A GLUSE‑style backbone can run on classic CPUs, tiny MCUs, VPUs, or spiking neural nets—so the same model scales from cloud pre‑training to the harsh radiation of low‑Earth orbit.

Bigger picture

Edge AI isn’t just about satellites. The same architectural principles—tiny models, local learning, neuromorphic acceleration—unlock smarter drones, industrial sensors, autonomous vehicles and next‑gen wearables. Brainchip’s role here is just one example of how neuromorphic IP is slipping quietly into commercial designs; expect a lot more silicon players to follow.

The age of “compute‑everywhere” is here. Whether you’re building the next CubeSat constellation, retro‑fitting factory equipment, or reimagining consumer devices, start designing for extreme efficiency today—the toolchain and the chips have finally caught up.

Please do some research on Philip Dodge. He is just an investor like us...

This is all just his personal opinion.

He is not some oracle.

 

[Guzzi62]

Please do some research on Philip Dodge. He is just an investor like us...

This is all just his personal opinion.

He is not some oracle.

Agreed and of no interest to us as such.

He is welcome on the board here off course, LOL.

 

[Cardpro]

@7für7

Wow, so the guy openly admits he has no real opinion of his own, but has no problem labeling shareholders as lazy couch potatoes stuffing their faces with pizza? That’s rich. Dismissing legitimate criticism by insulting the very people who own the company

No one’s asking for Sean to be a magician—but we do expect transparency, accountability, and results after years of promises. Instead, we get deflection, NDA smokescreens, and a fan club that defends poor performance by attacking anyone who dares speak up.

Calling that “entrepreneurial thinking”? Please. It’s just more spin. And if defending your vote requires insulting your fellow shareholders, maybe it’s not the rest of us with the negative attitude.

I don't have any problems with NDAs, but other than the words from management, theres nothing that aligns with them. Our revenue is close to nothing for years, no new IP contracts, no apparent mass produced products that contains Akida, no updates on any of our existing relationships - Ford, Merc, Valeo, NASA, and all these partnerships with other tiny companies, etc. Yes, we did hear about the recent new engagements, but that's still very early stage (SBIR - Small Business Innovation Research,
i.e. Research stage) and who knows, it might be another NASA...

So I find it very difficult to believe that we have 100s of EAPs/NDAs/engaged clients, etc., unless we can see some concrete evidence.

But they treat us like an idiots saying it takes time for adoption of new techs, etc., yet Sean/Peter have previously hinted us that revenues should flow soon but nothing yet...

IMO DYOR

 

[7für7]

@7für7

Wow, so the guy openly admits he has no real opinion of his own, but has no problem labeling shareholders as lazy couch potatoes stuffing their faces with pizza? That’s rich. Dismissing legitimate criticism by insulting the very people who own the company

No one’s asking for Sean to be a magician—but we do expect transparency, accountability, and results after years of promises. Instead, we get deflection, NDA smokescreens, and a fan club that defends poor performance by attacking anyone who dares speak up.

Calling that “entrepreneurial thinking”? Please. It’s just more spin. And if defending your vote requires insulting your fellow shareholders, maybe it’s not the rest of us with the negative attitude.

You keep throwing around accusations and direct insults without providing any meaningful arguments. I, on the other hand, simply pointed out how things work in the business world and gave a metaphorical example. If I happened to touch a nerve and you feel personally targeted, that’s not my fault. If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[Getupthere]

You keep throwing around accusations and direct insults without providing any meaningful arguments. I, on the other hand, simply pointed out how things work in the business world and gave a metaphorical example. If I happened to touch a nerve and you feel personally targeted, that’s not my fault. If the shoe fits, wear it.

I’ve made my stance clear on where BRN currently stands. But let’s talk about something that actually matters: accountability.

In any functioning business from startups to multinationals accountability flows both ways. Staff are accountable to management for performance.

Management is accountable to the board and shareholders for delivering results.

And shareholders have the right and responsibility to demand transparency, ask tough questions, and push back when things don’t add up.

That’s not “negativity.” That’s just business. What’s not business is silencing criticism with personal attacks, or pretending legitimate concerns are just noise from the sidelines.

If BRN is serious about its future, then the culture around it needs to reflect that—open, honest, and results-driven.

 

[7für7]

I’ve made my stance clear on where BRN currently stands. But let’s talk about something that actually matters: accountability.

In any functioning business from startups to multinationals accountability flows both ways. Staff are accountable to management for performance.

Management is accountable to the board and shareholders for delivering results.

And shareholders have the right and responsibility to demand transparency, ask tough questions, and push back when things don’t add up.

That’s not “negativity.” That’s just business. What’s not business is silencing criticism with personal attacks, or pretending legitimate concerns are just noise from the sidelines.

If BRN is serious about its future, then the culture around it needs to reflect that—open, honest, and results-driven.

If you had read my previous posts, my stance on the current situation would already be clear to you. And as I’ve said before – if you feel attacked by the way I express myself metaphorically, that’s not something I can help.

You want to talk business? Fine. You’re a shareholder who’s lost their nerve or trust, expressing concerns and pointing out everything you believe is going wrong. That’s your right – and it’s your opinion. But do you really think the rest of us investors are too stupid to see the company’s shortcomings? Do you think there’s full transparency in the stock market?

Even in established corporations, we often find out what really happened internally only after it’s officially announced. Some people here act like they’re sitting on the board and entitled to internal company information. But that’s not how it works. Yes, you bought shares – but you didn’t sign a contract that grants you access to confidential processes.

We retail investors are told what concerns us – and usually nothing more. Or are you writing complaint emails to Apple because they don’t inform you in advance about internal developments, upcoming deals, or unreleased products?

That’s not realistic. This constant whining and trying to influence others with such posts mostly shows one thing: a lack of understanding of how the stock market really works. You have your vote – use it, just like everyone else.

And if you truly believe you should be demanding more – then do it: call the company, start a petition, take the official route. It’s that simple. Or act with your own company how you want. Your choice

 

[Getupthere]

If you had read my previous posts, my stance on the current situation would already be clear to you. And as I’ve said before – if you feel attacked by the way I express myself metaphorically, that’s not something I can help.

You want to talk business? Fine. You’re a shareholder who’s lost their nerve or trust, expressing concerns and pointing out everything you believe is going wrong. That’s your right – and it’s your opinion. But do you really think the rest of us investors are too stupid to see the company’s shortcomings? Do you think there’s full transparency in the stock market?

Even in established corporations, we often find out what really happened internally only after it’s officially announced. Some people here act like they’re sitting on the board and entitled to internal company information. But that’s not how it works. Yes, you bought shares – but you didn’t sign a contract that grants you access to confidential processes.

We retail investors are told what concerns us – and usually nothing more. Or are you writing complaint emails to Apple because they don’t inform you in advance about internal developments, upcoming deals, or unreleased products?

That’s not realistic. This constant whining and trying to influence others with such posts mostly shows one thing: a lack of understanding of how the stock market really works. You have your vote – use it, just like everyone else.

And if you truly believe you should be demanding more – then do it: call the company, start a petition, take the official route. It’s that simple. Or act with your own company how you want. Your choice

So let me get this straight..being a good shareholder now means keeping quiet, accepting whatever the company does, and not holding anyone accountable because we’re not on the board? That’s a convenient take.

You’re basically saying we should sit down and shut up while management operates behind closed doors, and that asking questions or expressing concerns publicly is somehow whining?
No…that sounds more like someone who’s given up on the role shareholders are supposed to play.

The irony here is that you’re defending a CEO you admit you can’t even fairly assess over the past 12 months because you don’t know what’s happening inside the company.
Exactly. That is the problem. Lack of transparency doesn’t excuse poor performance, it makes it worse.
If we can’t evaluate leadership because of opacity, that’s not a reason to back off..that’s a red flag.

And comparing a small cap company like BRN to Apple is just lazy. Apple has delivered, consistently. Investors give them the benefit of the doubt because they’ve earned it. BRN is still trying to earn that trust and part of that means listening to shareholders, not dismissing them.

No one here is demanding trade secrets. We’re asking for honest communication, tangible results, and accountability. If that offends you, maybe ask yourself why.

 

[Diogenese]

Thanks for sharing, @Realinfo.

The issue with ASX disclosure rules really needs to be clarified at the AGM, in my opinion. The "ASX rules" explanation is starting to feel like a manufactured excuse for why major revenue deals are absent, rather than a valid operational barrier.

Why is it that Weebit doesn't seem to face the same issues? So far, Coby Hannoch hasn't suggested that WBT needs to redomicile to the US because of concerns around ASX-induced confidentiality breaches. On the contrary, Coby has stated he expects another five agreements to be signed before the end of the year. In addition, I believe final signings with 3 fabs and 3 customers are all now being linked to payment incentives as a demonstration of management's confidence.

I find it very hard to swallow the excuse that ASX disclosure rules are the reason a major deal might never come to pass. BrainChip has operated under a complete cone of silence for years now. Isn't that, in itself, proof enough for potential partners to have confidence that confidentiality would be maintained — precisely because absolutely nothing has been announced?

Aside from which, as you mentioned, ASX Rule 3.1A specifically allows confidentiality if negotiations are ongoing and if the information remains confidential. As this has been independently confirmed with the ASX, it undermines BrainChip's argument completely.

Hi Bravo,

One thing which differentiates us from WBT is our yellow card from the "covert" Ford disclosure. This was on top of our hockey sticks own goal.

The ASX is run by the inmates, who were all burned by the dot.com explosion, and once bitten by something they do not understand ...

All in all, I think we are on an ASX watch list.

We have seen a lot of green shoots in the last few years. The question is whether they have withered in the ground, or whether they are just slow developers.

In hindsight, management made a rod for our own back when we went IP-only, just when Akida 1 saw the light of day. IP only is an extremely tough nut to crack, macadamia tough. This cut the ground from under our then sales force and gave away the first-to-market advantage which in turn could have built the IP demand - spilt milk.

The remarkable thing is that there was a growing interest in Akida 1000 SoC basically without any marketing/sales directed to that. Management learned too late that they had underestimated the utility of, and market for, Akida 1000.

Lesson learned belatedly - we are now diversifying our product lines to include chips and software.

I have always been a supporter of IP as a product line, but I was disappointed that we switched to IP-only, just as Akida 1000 became available. Basically we discarded a large market with comparatively low entry barriers, for a very narrow, high entry barrier market.

 

[7für7]

So let me get this straight..being a good shareholder now means keeping quiet, accepting whatever the company does, and not holding anyone accountable because we’re not on the board? That’s a convenient take.

You’re basically saying we should sit down and shut up while management operates behind closed doors, and that asking questions or expressing concerns publicly is somehow whining?
No…that sounds more like someone who’s given up on the role shareholders are supposed to play.

The irony here is that you’re defending a CEO you admit you can’t even fairly assess over the past 12 months because you don’t know what’s happening inside the company.
Exactly. That is the problem. Lack of transparency doesn’t excuse poor performance, it makes it worse.
If we can’t evaluate leadership because of opacity, that’s not a reason to back off..that’s a red flag.

And comparing a small cap company like BRN to Apple is just lazy. Apple has delivered, consistently. Investors give them the benefit of the doubt because they’ve earned it. BRN is still trying to earn that trust and part of that means listening to shareholders, not dismissing them.

No one here is demanding trade secrets. We’re asking for honest communication, tangible results, and accountability. If that offends you, maybe ask yourself why.

You’re not just voicing concerns…you’re building a narrative. One where everyone who doesn’t share your level of outrage is either naive, passive, or part of the problem. That’s not shareholder activism.. that’s agendasetting.

You’re pushing a black and white worldview like if someone questions your tone or approach, they must be defending management blindly. That’s not only intellectually lazy… it’s a classic tactic to discredit other voices and steer the conversation in one direction.

Yes, we all see the challenges. Yes, we’d all prefer more clarity and results. But let’s not pretend that constant public outrage, laced with sarcasm, is some kind of noble crusade. It’s influence seeking…and ironically, you accuse others of being passive while trying to sway sentiment in your favor.

I’m not against criticism. I’m against emotional manipulation disguised as concern. If your goal is real change, there are official, direct channels. But if your goal is to stir discontent and rally followers to your narrative, then let’s at least be honest about what this really is.

Have a nice weekend

 

[toasty]

When I was a senior exec in the software industry, you got 2, maybe 3, quarters to prove your plan by $$ in the order book. After that you were shown the door. In my view 3 1/2 years with no notable commercial success is WAY too long and indicates that either the plan was deficient from the start or the person reponsible for implementing it (CEO) is not up to the task. Either way the board needs to take some remedial action.

And speaking of not being up to the task, if management doesn't know enough about the disclosure rules of the exchange they are listed on to placate potential customers, then they have no place in a listed company. Or maybe they were lying to hide the real agenda????