I was literally thinking this 2 days ago…blow them up!We should all get together and do it.
I was literally thinking this 2 days ago…blow them up!We should all get together and do it.
Check out this article dated 18 September 2022, entitled - "Mercedes-Benz Boasts Automated Driving Redundancy Strategy, Elon should see it".
Here's two extracts I found particularly interesting, with the entire article following.
Elon should see it, he-he-he!!!
Extract 1
View attachment 17080
Extract 2
View attachment 17079
Earlier this year, in March, Mercedes-Benz announced that it will accept liability if the new S-Class crashes while driving on the company’s Drive Pilot. The system was demonstrated in its automated valet parking mode during the same month and later offered in production cars starting in May 2022. Now, the brand underlined its redundancy strategy.
Mercedes-Benz Boasts Automated Driving Redundancy Strategy, Elon Should See It
Home > News > Coverstory
18 Sep 2022, 20:04 UTC ·
by Sebastian Toma![]()
Ever since December 2021, Mercedes-Benz's Drive Pilot has become the world’s first internationally certified SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) Level 3 driving system. Initially, it was only available as an option for the EQS and the S-Class in Germany, but its availability was extended to other markets later this year, including the U.S., and its certification level has yet to be matched by any automaker.
Mercedes-Benz is proud of this, as one could imagine, and the company states that it has been possible thanks to its safety-focused approach to system design.
The German marque underlines the use of physical and functional redundancy for steering, braking, power supply, and some parts of the sensor system. In other words, the vehicles that have the system come with backup solutions that work seamlessly when something goes wrong.
For example, all the sensors used for the steering motor, battery, and wheel speed are duplicated for good measure, and the algorithms that make them work have been adapted accordingly. Redundancies in the sensor system have been achieved by blending optical sensors, referred to as cameras, with radio sensors, and LiDAR.
![]()
There are even moisture sensors, microphones, and ultrasound sensors that deliver data that even human drivers might not have access to. After all, you have no idea what the outside humidity is like when you drive, but these sensors will know all about it.
Thanks to a suite of computers, the system will never be tired and will always score maximum points at its reaction times, unlike a human driver.
The entire system involves over 30 sensors to make sure that reliable driving is possible with the setup, and we cannot wait to test it out in the real world against other systems that claim to do something similar. Who knows, maybe a large technology supplier might organize a face-off with, say, Tesla’s Autopilot.
Yes, we did it, we mentioned Tesla, and we did that because the American company cannot pride itself on the same certification as Mercedes-Benz painstakingly obtained for its system.
![]()
Moreover, Tesla vehicles do not come with LiDAR sensors, so they rely on optical ones, along with a few other sensors, to keep the vehicle on the road. We have seen teardowns of Tesla vehicles, and there is no sign of sensor redundancy strategies.
Coming back to the ‘Benz, the Drive Pilot system has a few limitations, such as velocity, as well as the kind of roads that it can operate on. For example, a Mercedes-Benz with Drive Pilot can have its driver switch the system on to drive the vehicle on highways at speeds of up to 37 mph (ca. 60 kph) when heavy traffic or traffic jams are observed.
As Mercedes-Benz explains, if one part of the system fails, the rest are prepared to help the driver make a safe handover. If the latter is not complied with by the driver, the vehicle is capable of safely coming to a slow and steady stop that does not pose a risk to traffic following behind. The vehicle’s systems then presume that a medical emergency has occurred, and then they notify the driver that an emergency call will be made.
Having experienced an advanced Level 2 system in a Mercedes-Benz, I can say that the vehicle can figure out where it cannot stop and that it will continue to drive with its hazard lights on at a slow pace until it finds a place that it considers suitable to stop.
![]()
I did not let the vehicle call the authorities, but it did find a straight piece of road that was far enough from a corner to allow the drivers behind to avoid the vehicle that I was driving.
Returning to the Drive Pilot system, a company official noted that “the use of multiple sensors is particularly indispensable, as it helps them compensate for the situation-dependent deficits of one sensor with the characteristics of another.”
Markus Schafer, Member of the Board of Management of Mercedes-Benz Group AG and Chief Technology Officer, who is also responsible for Development and Procurement, has also noted that “relying on just one type of sensor would not meet Mercedes-Benz's high safety standards.” One can only wonder if the official was thinking of another brand in particular when he made that statement.
For example, the automated parking valet mode, which Mercedes-Benz calls Intelligent Park Pilot (written in FULL CAPS, nonetheless), is a splendid example of SAE Level 4 autonomy, as the company describes, while the Drive Pilot system is Level 3 autonomy according to SAE.
The difference is that Level 4 can operate without a driver behind the wheel in certain conditions. For now, those are limited to parking lots with dedicated sensors, but V2X tech will improve, and the vehicles of the future will be able to park themselves while you are already in line to pick up your latte.
![]()
Mercedes-Benz prides itself on installing the technology and sensors for its Intelligent Park Pilot, or pre-installation as the company describes it, for the moment when the technology will be approved in multiple markets.
The activation might happen Over-The-Air, Tesla-style, and we must hand it to them to prove that it can be made possible and that a manufacturer can survive by selling only electric vehicles. The latter two are things that nobody can take away from Tesla, as nobody can take Mercedes-Benz's title of having the world's first internationally certified SAE Level 3 system.
I keep saying enough is enough but just buy a few more because the price is going down and it's a steal at the moment. Can't help myself. I'm a brainaholic....I may actually be able to buy a few more by next week if I free up some money im kinda on a tight timeline hopping i can get about 4000 shares next week some time for the kids for their education.
Mercedes-Benz prides itself on installing the technology and sensors for its Intelligent Park Pilot, or pre-installation as the company describes it, for the moment when the technology will be approved in multiple markets.
The activation might happen Over-The-Air, Tesla-style, and we must hand it to them to prove that it can be made possible and that a manufacturer can survive by selling only electric vehicles.
So Intelligent Park Pilot, a Level 4 feature, is pre-installed waiting for legislative approval before being activated.
Ever since December 2021, Mercedes-Benz's Drive Pilot has become the world’s first internationally certified SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) Level 3 driving system. Initially, it was only available as an option for the EQS and the S-Class in Germany, but its availability was extended to other markets later this year, including the U.S., and its certification level has yet to be matched by any automaker.
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/...with-drive-pilot-system-activated-188196.html
Mercedes-Benz to Start Selling Cars With Drive Pilot System Activated
Home > News > Industry
6 May 2022, 12:59 UTC ·
by Sebastian Toma![]()
Mercedes-Benz has announced the sales launch of Drive Pilot, its conditionally automated driving system. The German marque will offer it for the S-Class and the EQS, and they even revealed the pricing for the system. Starting May 17, 2022, customers who order an S-Class or an EQS can also specify the SAE Level 3 system.
The company has already provided the legally required documentation in order to obtain regulatory series approval for two U.S. states, California and Nevada. In the two states, if the legal situation will allow it by the end of this year, the system will be operational once it gets the green light.
So it looks like you can order the Drive Pilot in Germany and have it operational at level 3, and in California and Nevada, it will be installed but not activated until it is legalized.
Will the EQS and S-Class include Akida?
"... you've gotta ask yourself one question , ..." is it easier to install the MB cinemascope screen than to install a SNN chip to control "Hey Mercedes!"?
I'm not sure if anybody bothered to read the Motley Fool's article, stupidly pondering and trying to inform the investing public (or the group of fools, that choose to take advice from fools..) but not only do they have poor English skills for journalists/investment advisors? But their maths sucks too!!
Radar Module | "Smart Sensor" | Centralized (Satellite) | |
---|---|---|---|
Processor location | Radar module/chip | Zonal/Central ECU | |
Radar output | Processed data (objects) | Processed data (point cloud) | Raw data/Range FFT |
Network type | CAN | 100Mb Ethernet | Gb Ethernet |
Video questioning about asic being corrupt
Good effort and thanks for trying. It’s startling that the ASX acknowledged the breach, yet openly admitted they won’t be following it up. I guarantee if it was a singular which had broken the law and the rules of the ASX then action would have been swiftly taken. it seems the rules change based on the size of your legal representation and depth of your pockets. Shit show.I exercised my democratic right to complain to ASIC about CitiCorp Nominees and the ASX and this is how it went:
This is the response I received and my reply. As you can see I am a little dismissive of ASIC in my reply.
In the complaint they ask you for permission to disclose your identity to the person you have complained about which not wanting to give them any excuse to ignore the complaint I did and in their reply they pay me on the head and say I will not hear anything further as they are bound to keep things secret from me as to what action they take. What this is saying is we would not want the market to think less of CitiCorp Nominees just because we might make an adverse finding against them for breaching the law and their position in the market to be affected:
"Our reference: CAS-104477-L5P6S5
Dear Mr
CITICORP NOMINEES PTY LTD ACN 000 808 030
Thank you for your report of misconduct of 28 July 2022 raising concerns regarding disclosure of Citicorp Nominees Pty Ltd’s acquisition of shares in Brainchip Holdings Ltd.
ASIC values the information we receive from the public, and reports of misconduct such as yours assist us in working to build confidence in the integrity of the capital markets.
ASIC conducts an assessment of every report of misconduct we receive. The issues you have raised will receive careful consideration, and we have recorded them on our internal intelligence database.
In selecting matters for regulatory action, we consider a range of factors, including whether the misconduct report suggests any breaches of the law we administer, whether we have sufficient grounds to suspect that a breach has occurred, and whether regulatory intervention would benefit the broader community beyond the affected individuals.
Please see Information Sheet 152 Public comment which sets out the limited circumstances when we will comment publicly on our activities. These limitations are intended to protect the confidentiality of information reported to ASIC and the integrity of ASIC’s investigation and enforcement activities. For matters involving our market supervision, we are aware that any public comment may affect trading in the market, and we are committed to a fair, orderly, and transparent market.
Accordingly, ASIC does not comment on operational matters, or our assessment of information in relation to markets matters, and we are unable to provide further details about what, if any, action we may or may not take in relation to the concerns you have raised. We hope you can appreciate the reasons why we do not make such comment.
If you require any information on our role as a market supervisor, or enforcement action taken by ASIC, please visit ASIC’s website at www.asic.gov.au.
Please note that ASIC will only contact you again about your report of misconduct if we require further information or evidence to assist in our inquiries.
Yours sincerely
Kaitlyne GrahamAnalyst, Misconduct & Breach Reporting"
"Dear Kaitlyne Graham
Thank you for your email.
While I am not surprised by ASIC's approach to my complaint it does strike me as rather interesting as a retired lawyer and former police officer that despite reporting this matter firstly to the ASX and then to your office and with CitiCorp Nominees now appearing as the largest shareholder on a recently released ASX Brainchip Top 20 shareholders notice that it has still not been prevailed upon by anyone charged with legislative responsibility to file a notice under S.671 of the Corporations Act, 2001 despite the fact that it is a strict liability offence and impossible for a sophisticated corporate entity to defend.
Being just a retail shareholder and member of the public who depends upon the maintenance of a level playing field and a fair market I would have expected something a little bit more proactive from the market regulators. Obviously I was expecting far too much and it is beyond the systems ability to request that an organisation the size of CitiCorp Nominees immediately mitigate its offence and fill out a form and lodge it as required.
Kind regards"
As can be seen my complaint was actioned at ASIC in 28 July, 2022 and as expected CitiCorp Nominees has still to file a notice.
And for the record I have as promised by ASIC had no further communications.
What I should add is I first complained to the ASX and after a number of follow up enquires I received a letter saying that while there appeared to be a breach the ASX did not have the power to investigate and that if I wanted to take it further ASIC had the power to take action.
In my complaint to ASIC I also complained about the ASX for failing to bring the matter itself to the ASIC after agreeing in writing to me that there appeared to be a breach and leaving it to me. But this is another story.
Suffice to say having conducted investigations of corruption at the highest levels in my career I am disgusted.
The bottom line though is it is not ASIC or the ASX it is the Government that is responsible for this complete breach of faith with the Australian public.
However while ever former politicians from both sides of politics end up on Boards and/or as highly paid consultants to big business after they leave office nothing will happen.
My opinion only DYOR
FF
AKIDA BALLISTA
Thanks FF. Not much more we can do but call out bad behavior. The question I have is what does Citi want with this many BRN share Will they they want more shares?Are they going to influence the company in a particular direction at some point? I don't think they are parking the money to quickly move it again so does make me wonder what their long play is. Suspect they are on board till a nasdaq listing.I exercised my democratic right to complain to ASIC about CitiCorp Nominees and the ASX and this is how it went:
This is the response I received and my reply. As you can see I am a little dismissive of ASIC in my reply.
In the complaint they ask you for permission to disclose your identity to the person you have complained about which not wanting to give them any excuse to ignore the complaint I did and in their reply they pay me on the head and say I will not hear anything further as they are bound to keep things secret from me as to what action they take. What this is saying is we would not want the market to think less of CitiCorp Nominees just because we might make an adverse finding against them for breaching the law and their position in the market to be affected:
"Our reference: CAS-104477-L5P6S5
Dear Mr
CITICORP NOMINEES PTY LTD ACN 000 808 030
Thank you for your report of misconduct of 28 July 2022 raising concerns regarding disclosure of Citicorp Nominees Pty Ltd’s acquisition of shares in Brainchip Holdings Ltd.
ASIC values the information we receive from the public, and reports of misconduct such as yours assist us in working to build confidence in the integrity of the capital markets.
ASIC conducts an assessment of every report of misconduct we receive. The issues you have raised will receive careful consideration, and we have recorded them on our internal intelligence database.
In selecting matters for regulatory action, we consider a range of factors, including whether the misconduct report suggests any breaches of the law we administer, whether we have sufficient grounds to suspect that a breach has occurred, and whether regulatory intervention would benefit the broader community beyond the affected individuals.
Please see Information Sheet 152 Public comment which sets out the limited circumstances when we will comment publicly on our activities. These limitations are intended to protect the confidentiality of information reported to ASIC and the integrity of ASIC’s investigation and enforcement activities. For matters involving our market supervision, we are aware that any public comment may affect trading in the market, and we are committed to a fair, orderly, and transparent market.
Accordingly, ASIC does not comment on operational matters, or our assessment of information in relation to markets matters, and we are unable to provide further details about what, if any, action we may or may not take in relation to the concerns you have raised. We hope you can appreciate the reasons why we do not make such comment.
If you require any information on our role as a market supervisor, or enforcement action taken by ASIC, please visit ASIC’s website at www.asic.gov.au.
Please note that ASIC will only contact you again about your report of misconduct if we require further information or evidence to assist in our inquiries.
Yours sincerely
Kaitlyne GrahamAnalyst, Misconduct & Breach Reporting"
"Dear Kaitlyne Graham
Thank you for your email.
While I am not surprised by ASIC's approach to my complaint it does strike me as rather interesting as a retired lawyer and former police officer that despite reporting this matter firstly to the ASX and then to your office and with CitiCorp Nominees now appearing as the largest shareholder on a recently released ASX Brainchip Top 20 shareholders notice that it has still not been prevailed upon by anyone charged with legislative responsibility to file a notice under S.671 of the Corporations Act, 2001 despite the fact that it is a strict liability offence and impossible for a sophisticated corporate entity to defend.
Being just a retail shareholder and member of the public who depends upon the maintenance of a level playing field and a fair market I would have expected something a little bit more proactive from the market regulators. Obviously I was expecting far too much and it is beyond the systems ability to request that an organisation the size of CitiCorp Nominees immediately mitigate its offence and fill out a form and lodge it as required.
Kind regards"
As can be seen my complaint was actioned at ASIC in 28 July, 2022 and as expected CitiCorp Nominees has still to file a notice.
And for the record I have as promised by ASIC had no further communications.
What I should add is I first complained to the ASX and after a number of follow up enquires I received a letter saying that while there appeared to be a breach the ASX did not have the power to investigate and that if I wanted to take it further ASIC had the power to take action.
In my complaint to ASIC I also complained about the ASX for failing to bring the matter itself to the ASIC after agreeing in writing to me that there appeared to be a breach and leaving it to me. But this is another story.
Suffice to say having conducted investigations of corruption at the highest levels in my career I am disgusted.
The bottom line though is it is not ASIC or the ASX it is the Government that is responsible for this complete breach of faith with the Australian public.
However while ever former politicians from both sides of politics end up on Boards and/or as highly paid consultants to big business after they leave office nothing will happen.
My opinion only DYOR
FF
AKIDA BALLISTA
Laws are created by the rich for the rich. I was told there are 4 supercomputers sitting next to the ASX main computers which intercepts trades milli-seconds before it hits the exchange computers and those supercomputers can execute trades just ahead of the 'normal' trades. Imagine someone puts in a buy order for 5 million BRN shares at market, those who paid the tens of millions of dollars fees would know the share price is going to go up and can buy the shares just before the big trade. How that is legal is beyond my ability to comprehend.I exercised my democratic right to complain to ASIC about CitiCorp Nominees and the ASX and this is how it went:
This is the response I received and my reply. As you can see I am a little dismissive of ASIC in my reply.
In the complaint they ask you for permission to disclose your identity to the person you have complained about which not wanting to give them any excuse to ignore the complaint I did and in their reply they pay me on the head and say I will not hear anything further as they are bound to keep things secret from me as to what action they take. What this is saying is we would not want the market to think less of CitiCorp Nominees just because we might make an adverse finding against them for breaching the law and their position in the market to be affected:
"Our reference: CAS-104477-L5P6S5
Dear Mr
CITICORP NOMINEES PTY LTD ACN 000 808 030
Thank you for your report of misconduct of 28 July 2022 raising concerns regarding disclosure of Citicorp Nominees Pty Ltd’s acquisition of shares in Brainchip Holdings Ltd.
ASIC values the information we receive from the public, and reports of misconduct such as yours assist us in working to build confidence in the integrity of the capital markets.
ASIC conducts an assessment of every report of misconduct we receive. The issues you have raised will receive careful consideration, and we have recorded them on our internal intelligence database.
In selecting matters for regulatory action, we consider a range of factors, including whether the misconduct report suggests any breaches of the law we administer, whether we have sufficient grounds to suspect that a breach has occurred, and whether regulatory intervention would benefit the broader community beyond the affected individuals.
Please see Information Sheet 152 Public comment which sets out the limited circumstances when we will comment publicly on our activities. These limitations are intended to protect the confidentiality of information reported to ASIC and the integrity of ASIC’s investigation and enforcement activities. For matters involving our market supervision, we are aware that any public comment may affect trading in the market, and we are committed to a fair, orderly, and transparent market.
Accordingly, ASIC does not comment on operational matters, or our assessment of information in relation to markets matters, and we are unable to provide further details about what, if any, action we may or may not take in relation to the concerns you have raised. We hope you can appreciate the reasons why we do not make such comment.
If you require any information on our role as a market supervisor, or enforcement action taken by ASIC, please visit ASIC’s website at www.asic.gov.au.
Please note that ASIC will only contact you again about your report of misconduct if we require further information or evidence to assist in our inquiries.
Yours sincerely
Kaitlyne GrahamAnalyst, Misconduct & Breach Reporting"
"Dear Kaitlyne Graham
Thank you for your email.
While I am not surprised by ASIC's approach to my complaint it does strike me as rather interesting as a retired lawyer and former police officer that despite reporting this matter firstly to the ASX and then to your office and with CitiCorp Nominees now appearing as the largest shareholder on a recently released ASX Brainchip Top 20 shareholders notice that it has still not been prevailed upon by anyone charged with legislative responsibility to file a notice under S.671 of the Corporations Act, 2001 despite the fact that it is a strict liability offence and impossible for a sophisticated corporate entity to defend.
Being just a retail shareholder and member of the public who depends upon the maintenance of a level playing field and a fair market I would have expected something a little bit more proactive from the market regulators. Obviously I was expecting far too much and it is beyond the systems ability to request that an organisation the size of CitiCorp Nominees immediately mitigate its offence and fill out a form and lodge it as required.
Kind regards"
As can be seen my complaint was actioned at ASIC in 28 July, 2022 and as expected CitiCorp Nominees has still to file a notice.
And for the record I have as promised by ASIC had no further communications.
What I should add is I first complained to the ASX and after a number of follow up enquires I received a letter saying that while there appeared to be a breach the ASX did not have the power to investigate and that if I wanted to take it further ASIC had the power to take action.
In my complaint to ASIC I also complained about the ASX for failing to bring the matter itself to the ASIC after agreeing in writing to me that there appeared to be a breach and leaving it to me. But this is another story.
Suffice to say having conducted investigations of corruption at the highest levels in my career I am disgusted.
The bottom line though is it is not ASIC or the ASX it is the Government that is responsible for this complete breach of faith with the Australian public.
However while ever former politicians from both sides of politics end up on Boards and/or as highly paid consultants to big business after they leave office nothing will happen.
My opinion only DYOR
FF
AKIDA BALLISTA
Hey Fact Finder, my reading is they don’t have to file as they are nominee holdings and relevant interest is taken by the beneficiaries- see s609(2). Link below.I exercised my democratic right to complain to ASIC about CitiCorp Nominees and the ASX and this is how it went:
This is the response I received and my reply. As you can see I am a little dismissive of ASIC in my reply.
In the complaint they ask you for permission to disclose your identity to the person you have complained about which not wanting to give them any excuse to ignore the complaint I did and in their reply they pay me on the head and say I will not hear anything further as they are bound to keep things secret from me as to what action they take. What this is saying is we would not want the market to think less of CitiCorp Nominees just because we might make an adverse finding against them for breaching the law and their position in the market to be affected:
"Our reference: CAS-104477-L5P6S5
Dear Mr
CITICORP NOMINEES PTY LTD ACN 000 808 030
Thank you for your report of misconduct of 28 July 2022 raising concerns regarding disclosure of Citicorp Nominees Pty Ltd’s acquisition of shares in Brainchip Holdings Ltd.
ASIC values the information we receive from the public, and reports of misconduct such as yours assist us in working to build confidence in the integrity of the capital markets.
ASIC conducts an assessment of every report of misconduct we receive. The issues you have raised will receive careful consideration, and we have recorded them on our internal intelligence database.
In selecting matters for regulatory action, we consider a range of factors, including whether the misconduct report suggests any breaches of the law we administer, whether we have sufficient grounds to suspect that a breach has occurred, and whether regulatory intervention would benefit the broader community beyond the affected individuals.
Please see Information Sheet 152 Public comment which sets out the limited circumstances when we will comment publicly on our activities. These limitations are intended to protect the confidentiality of information reported to ASIC and the integrity of ASIC’s investigation and enforcement activities. For matters involving our market supervision, we are aware that any public comment may affect trading in the market, and we are committed to a fair, orderly, and transparent market.
Accordingly, ASIC does not comment on operational matters, or our assessment of information in relation to markets matters, and we are unable to provide further details about what, if any, action we may or may not take in relation to the concerns you have raised. We hope you can appreciate the reasons why we do not make such comment.
If you require any information on our role as a market supervisor, or enforcement action taken by ASIC, please visit ASIC’s website at www.asic.gov.au.
Please note that ASIC will only contact you again about your report of misconduct if we require further information or evidence to assist in our inquiries.
Yours sincerely
Kaitlyne GrahamAnalyst, Misconduct & Breach Reporting"
"Dear Kaitlyne Graham
Thank you for your email.
While I am not surprised by ASIC's approach to my complaint it does strike me as rather interesting as a retired lawyer and former police officer that despite reporting this matter firstly to the ASX and then to your office and with CitiCorp Nominees now appearing as the largest shareholder on a recently released ASX Brainchip Top 20 shareholders notice that it has still not been prevailed upon by anyone charged with legislative responsibility to file a notice under S.671 of the Corporations Act, 2001 despite the fact that it is a strict liability offence and impossible for a sophisticated corporate entity to defend.
Being just a retail shareholder and member of the public who depends upon the maintenance of a level playing field and a fair market I would have expected something a little bit more proactive from the market regulators. Obviously I was expecting far too much and it is beyond the systems ability to request that an organisation the size of CitiCorp Nominees immediately mitigate its offence and fill out a form and lodge it as required.
Kind regards"
As can be seen my complaint was actioned at ASIC in 28 July, 2022 and as expected CitiCorp Nominees has still to file a notice.
And for the record I have as promised by ASIC had no further communications.
What I should add is I first complained to the ASX and after a number of follow up enquires I received a letter saying that while there appeared to be a breach the ASX did not have the power to investigate and that if I wanted to take it further ASIC had the power to take action.
In my complaint to ASIC I also complained about the ASX for failing to bring the matter itself to the ASIC after agreeing in writing to me that there appeared to be a breach and leaving it to me. But this is another story.
Suffice to say having conducted investigations of corruption at the highest levels in my career I am disgusted.
The bottom line though is it is not ASIC or the ASX it is the Government that is responsible for this complete breach of faith with the Australian public.
However while ever former politicians from both sides of politics end up on Boards and/or as highly paid consultants to big business after they leave office nothing will happen.
My opinion only DYOR
FF
AKIDA BALLISTA
Good effort and thanks for trying. It’s startling that the ASX acknowledged the breach, yet openly admitted they won’t be following it up. I guarantee if it was a singular which had broken the law and the rules of the ASX then action would have been swiftly taken. it seems the rules change based on the size of your legal representative and depth of your pockets. Shit show.
Good job Jesse, I saw that and wondered what the f&%k did he say, what, were not special???@Diogenese over to you. I think he is trying to say that akida is just like all other companies working on neuromorphic and that Brainchip chip isn’t unique with its on-chip learning capabilities compared to others….I don’t think so! View attachment 17143
Great effort @Fact Finder , even if it goes nowhere, 10 out of 10 to you.... (and the others on this site that callout the shortcomings {pun intended} of the systems.I exercised my democratic right to complain to ASIC about CitiCorp Nominees and the ASX and this is how it went:
This is the response I received and my reply. As you can see I am a little dismissive of ASIC in my reply.
In the complaint they ask you for permission to disclose your identity to the person you have complained about which not wanting to give them any excuse to ignore the complaint I did and in their reply they pat me on the head and say I will not hear anything further as they are bound to keep things secret from me as to what action they take.
What this is saying is we would not want the market to think less of CitiCorp Nominees just because we might make an adverse finding against them for breaching the law and their position in the market to be affected:
"Our reference: CAS-104477-L5P6S5
Dear Mr
CITICORP NOMINEES PTY LTD ACN 000 808 030
Thank you for your report of misconduct of 28 July 2022 raising concerns regarding disclosure of Citicorp Nominees Pty Ltd’s acquisition of shares in Brainchip Holdings Ltd.
ASIC values the information we receive from the public, and reports of misconduct such as yours assist us in working to build confidence in the integrity of the capital markets.
ASIC conducts an assessment of every report of misconduct we receive. The issues you have raised will receive careful consideration, and we have recorded them on our internal intelligence database.
In selecting matters for regulatory action, we consider a range of factors, including whether the misconduct report suggests any breaches of the law we administer, whether we have sufficient grounds to suspect that a breach has occurred, and whether regulatory intervention would benefit the broader community beyond the affected individuals.
Please see Information Sheet 152 Public comment which sets out the limited circumstances when we will comment publicly on our activities. These limitations are intended to protect the confidentiality of information reported to ASIC and the integrity of ASIC’s investigation and enforcement activities. For matters involving our market supervision, we are aware that any public comment may affect trading in the market, and we are committed to a fair, orderly, and transparent market.
Accordingly, ASIC does not comment on operational matters, or our assessment of information in relation to markets matters, and we are unable to provide further details about what, if any, action we may or may not take in relation to the concerns you have raised. We hope you can appreciate the reasons why we do not make such comment.
If you require any information on our role as a market supervisor, or enforcement action taken by ASIC, please visit ASIC’s website at www.asic.gov.au.
Please note that ASIC will only contact you again about your report of misconduct if we require further information or evidence to assist in our inquiries.
Yours sincerely
Kaitlyne GrahamAnalyst, Misconduct & Breach Reporting"
"Dear Kaitlyne Graham
Thank you for your email.
While I am not surprised by ASIC's approach to my complaint it does strike me as rather interesting as a retired lawyer and former police officer that despite reporting this matter firstly to the ASX and then to your office and with CitiCorp Nominees now appearing as the largest shareholder on a recently released ASX Brainchip Top 20 shareholders notice that it has still not been prevailed upon by anyone charged with legislative responsibility to file a notice under S.671 of the Corporations Act, 2001 despite the fact that it is a strict liability offence and impossible for a sophisticated corporate entity to defend.
Being just a retail shareholder and member of the public who depends upon the maintenance of a level playing field and a fair market I would have expected something a little bit more proactive from the market regulators. Obviously I was expecting far too much and it is beyond the systems ability to request that an organisation the size of CitiCorp Nominees immediately mitigate its offence and fill out a form and lodge it as required.
Kind regards"
As can be seen my complaint was actioned at ASIC in 28 July, 2022 and as expected CitiCorp Nominees has still to file a notice.
And for the record I have as promised by ASIC had no further communications.
What I should add is I first complained to the ASX and after a number of follow up enquires I received a letter saying that while there appeared to be a breach the ASX did not have the power to investigate and that if I wanted to take it further ASIC had the power to take action.
In my complaint to ASIC I also complained about the ASX for failing to bring the matter itself to the ASIC after agreeing in writing to me that there appeared to be a breach and leaving it to me. But this is another story.
Suffice to say having conducted investigations of corruption at the highest levels in my career I am disgusted.
The bottom line though is it is not ASIC or the ASX it is the Government that is responsible for this complete breach of faith with the Australian public.
However while ever former politicians from both sides of politics end up on Boards and/or as highly paid consultants to big business after they leave office nothing will happen.
My opinion only DYOR
FF
AKIDA BALLISTA