BRN Discussion Ongoing

[TheUnfairAdvantage]

What’s happening, is there an inquiry into BRN? It doesn’t appear to be trading??

Public holiday

 

[ItsKane]

Public holiday

Thank you!
- Confused kiwi

 

[Quercuskid]

Public holiday

Omg, and I am English, how embarrassing, and don't comment on that!!!!

 

[Fact Finder]

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

Hi @Moonshot
The following is the ASIC Guide. Two things to note:
1. The reasons for disclosure
2. The only way to know if a Nominee is holding as a bare trust and entitled to an exemption is to read the fine print of the agreement and speak to the parties about how it operates formally and informally because there is nothing standard about a Nominee agreement.

https://download.asic.gov.au/media/1236706/rg5-published-20-december-2013.pdf

To assist:

“What is a Nominee Company and Why are They Used?​

by Quinns Blog | Oct 12, 2020 | Accounting News, Newsletter Features
A nominee is a person, partnership or company that is entrusted to hold and administer shares or other property as the registered legal owner on behalf of the real owner (beneficial owner). The nominee holds the shares or property on trust and will have their name and details listed on public documentation in place of the beneficial owner who has the effective ownership and control of the shares.

The nominee is the legal owner in name only and the beneficial owner holds an equitable interest in those shares. In brief, an equitable interest is an interest in or right over property, which gives the holder of the right to acquire formal legal title from the person who is registered as the owner (nominee).
A corporate nominee is most frequently used to hold shares on trust on behalf of the beneficial owner. To ensure the beneficial owner retains control over the shares, an agreement between the nominee shareholder and the beneficial owner is executed stating that the shares or property are held on trust by the nominee for the beneficial owner’s benefit and that the nominee’s name and details will be used on documentation. An agreement can also outline specific terms, such as whether the nominee shareholder, as the registered owner of shares, can exercise any control such as voting rights. Express terms dealing with voting rights are often included and in the majority of cases, nominee shareholder does not and would not vote at all unless expressly directed or authorised by the beneficial owner.”

If you decide to read all the above you will realise that according to the ASIC ensuring disclosure is essential to allow shareholders to be properly informed so they can make proper decisions.

This idea is one that I completely agree with particularly when one of the stated reasons for using a Nominee in the above article is to hide your identity.

If this was a legitimate consideration why are all other shareholder details freely available on the share register. Why do we not get to tick a box when we buy shares that stops our name being publicly available.

In any event as all of the above makes clear simply using the term Nominee does not of itself exempt compliance with S. 671B of the Corporations Act.

This being so how can it not be reasonable for ASIC to inform this concerned shareholder after they conclude their investigation of the result.

What impediment would doing so have on the operation of the fair market to inform this concerned shareholder that CitiCorp Nominees is a fair and noble company acting within the letter and spirit of the law? Would not it raise my confidence that the market is being conducted fairly in the interests of all participants?

My opinion only DYOR
FF

AKIDA BALLISTA

 

[chapman89]

I love his second qualification ‘Story teller.’ Says it all really.

Feed forward is a clue or his absence of any knowledge about it together with his lack of understanding that the STDP used by Brainchip incorporates the JAST learning rules which are patent protected and as such the others he references would be using them illegally or on licence from Brainchip.

A story by Gordon Wilson aged 31 years.
Teachers comment: Could do better.

My opinion only DYOR
FF

AKIDA BALLISTA

He’s the CEO of “Rain” LOL

 

[Fact Finder]

He’s the CEO of “Rain” LOL

View attachment 17154

Thanks @chapman89 for pointing out he has a background in politics. How could I have ever doubted him. Just has to be completely honest and trustworthy.

My opinion only DYOR
FF

AKIDA BALLISTA

 

[alwaysgreen]

Hi @Moonshot
The following is the ASIC Guide. Two things to note:
1. The reasons for disclosure
2. The only way to know if a Nominee is holding as a bare trust and entitled to an exemption is to read the fine print of the agreement and speak to the parties about how it operates formally and informally because there is nothing standard about a Nominee agreement.

https://download.asic.gov.au/media/1236706/rg5-published-20-december-2013.pdf

To assist:

“What is a Nominee Company and Why are They Used?​

by Quinns Blog | Oct 12, 2020 | Accounting News, Newsletter Features
A nominee is a person, partnership or company that is entrusted to hold and administer shares or other property as the registered legal owner on behalf of the real owner (beneficial owner). The nominee holds the shares or property on trust and will have their name and details listed on public documentation in place of the beneficial owner who has the effective ownership and control of the shares.

The nominee is the legal owner in name only and the beneficial owner holds an equitable interest in those shares. In brief, an equitable interest is an interest in or right over property, which gives the holder of the right to acquire formal legal title from the person who is registered as the owner (nominee).
A corporate nominee is most frequently used to hold shares on trust on behalf of the beneficial owner. To ensure the beneficial owner retains control over the shares, an agreement between the nominee shareholder and the beneficial owner is executed stating that the shares or property are held on trust by the nominee for the beneficial owner’s benefit and that the nominee’s name and details will be used on documentation. An agreement can also outline specific terms, such as whether the nominee shareholder, as the registered owner of shares, can exercise any control such as voting rights. Express terms dealing with voting rights are often included and in the majority of cases, nominee shareholder does not and would not vote at all unless expressly directed or authorised by the beneficial owner.”

If you decide to read all the above you will realise that according to the ASIC ensuring disclosure is essential to allow shareholders to be properly informed so they can make proper decisions.

This idea is one that I completely agree with particularly when one of the stated reasons for using a Nominee in the above article is to hide your identity.

If this was a legitimate consideration why are all other shareholder details freely available on the share register. Why do we not get to tick a box when we buy shares that stops our name being publicly available.

In any event as all of the above makes clear simply using the term Nominee does not of itself exempt compliance with S. 671B of the Corporations Act.

This being so how can it not be reasonable for ASIC to inform this concerned shareholder after they conclude their investigation of the result.

What impediment would doing so have on the operation of the fair market to inform this concerned shareholder that CitiCorp Nominees is a fair and noble company acting within the letter and spirit of the law? Would not it raise my confidence that the market is being conducted fairly in the interests of all participants?

My opinion only DYOR
FF

AKIDA BALLISTA

The next top 20 list will be interesting. Have the "nominees" further grown their position?

Definitely something to keep an eye on.

 

[Diogenese]

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

Stock exchanges always maintain the highest standards of ethics:
Bernard Lawrence Madoff (/ˈmeɪdɔːf/ MAY-dawf;[1] April 29, 1938 – April 14, 2021) was an American fraudster and financier who ran the largest Ponzi scheme in history, worth about $64.8 billion.[2][3] He was at one time chairman of the NASDAQ stock exchange.[4] He advanced the proliferation of electronic trading platforms and the concept of payment for order flow, which has been described as a "legal kickback".

 

[Fullmoonfever]

Hi @Moonshot
The following is the ASIC Guide. Two things to note:
1. The reasons for disclosure
2. The only way to know if a Nominee is holding as a bare trust and entitled to an exemption is to read the fine print of the agreement and speak to the parties about how it operates formally and informally because there is nothing standard about a Nominee agreement.

https://download.asic.gov.au/media/1236706/rg5-published-20-december-2013.pdf

To assist:

“What is a Nominee Company and Why are They Used?​

by Quinns Blog | Oct 12, 2020 | Accounting News, Newsletter Features
A nominee is a person, partnership or company that is entrusted to hold and administer shares or other property as the registered legal owner on behalf of the real owner (beneficial owner). The nominee holds the shares or property on trust and will have their name and details listed on public documentation in place of the beneficial owner who has the effective ownership and control of the shares.

The nominee is the legal owner in name only and the beneficial owner holds an equitable interest in those shares. In brief, an equitable interest is an interest in or right over property, which gives the holder of the right to acquire formal legal title from the person who is registered as the owner (nominee).
A corporate nominee is most frequently used to hold shares on trust on behalf of the beneficial owner. To ensure the beneficial owner retains control over the shares, an agreement between the nominee shareholder and the beneficial owner is executed stating that the shares or property are held on trust by the nominee for the beneficial owner’s benefit and that the nominee’s name and details will be used on documentation. An agreement can also outline specific terms, such as whether the nominee shareholder, as the registered owner of shares, can exercise any control such as voting rights. Express terms dealing with voting rights are often included and in the majority of cases, nominee shareholder does not and would not vote at all unless expressly directed or authorised by the beneficial owner.”

If you decide to read all the above you will realise that according to the ASIC ensuring disclosure is essential to allow shareholders to be properly informed so they can make proper decisions.

This idea is one that I completely agree with particularly when one of the stated reasons for using a Nominee in the above article is to hide your identity.

If this was a legitimate consideration why are all other shareholder details freely available on the share register. Why do we not get to tick a box when we buy shares that stops our name being publicly available.

In any event as all of the above makes clear simply using the term Nominee does not of itself exempt compliance with S. 671B of the Corporations Act.

This being so how can it not be reasonable for ASIC to inform this concerned shareholder after they conclude their investigation of the result.

What impediment would doing so have on the operation of the fair market to inform this concerned shareholder that CitiCorp Nominees is a fair and noble company acting within the letter and spirit of the law? Would not it raise my confidence that the market is being conducted fairly in the interests of all participants?

My opinion only DYOR
FF

AKIDA BALLISTA

Hi FF

I posted the below a little while ago and essentially a trace can be undertaken if the company wished to understand and also release who are sitting behind the nominee accounts.

Whilst it can be understood why this legislation / act came about as in to provide an element of anonymity for say some entities, to me there should be a mechanism for application to a body who approves or declines an individual or corporate entity sitting behind a nominee account without meeting certain criteria.

Would alleviate some of the angst and BS dealings these buyers are afforded.


Post in thread 'BRN Discussion 2022' https://thestockexchange.com.au/threads/brn-discussion-2022.1/post-101499

 

[Fastback6666]

Always shopping for discounts . .88 how could one possibly say no, should it flip the correct way , Egypt here I come ….

Nan. xxx

Yes I bought another 7677 shares yesterday as well. Very interesting pop at the close though on such a red market day.

That shows me that BRN hit the SP floor again around this 88 cent and resisted going lower for a third time this month and the signal was to start buying it up again from here. Very nice to see that we have a pretty solid floor.

Waiting for more dollars to flow through in the quarterly now...this will be a real ? report ...hard to even guess what will be in there.

 

[Xray1]

Just a Question for Fact Finder and Diogenese:

I just read the half yearly financial report once again and noted that the Co had spent $927,590 in third party licenses and hardware related to the development of next-generation Akida engineering samples.

I wonder who the Co paid this amount to ????

I sometimes wonder if Brainchip may have purchased a third party license for Intels "Lava"...... just in case Intel was moving forward with their technology and BRN wanted to make very sure that we were fully compatiable with their systems if they actually ever eventuated becoming a real commercial AI product.

OR

Did we need to obtain a third party Lic and hardware from some other source so as to make our adoption or expanded additional functioning ability into any of our current and/or other eco partners systems products stronger such as NASA, Mercedes Benz, or one of the other tip of the iceberg Co's etc etc etc....

 

[Fact Finder]

Hi FF

I posted the below a little while ago and essentially a trace can be undertaken if the company wished to understand and also release who are sitting behind the nominee accounts.

Whilst it can be understood why this legislation / act came about as in to provide an element of anonymity for say some entities, to me there should be a mechanism for application to a body who approves or declines an individual or corporate entity sitting behind a nominee account without meeting certain criteria.

Would alleviate some of the angst and BS dealings these buyers are afforded.


Post in thread 'BRN Discussion 2022' https://thestockexchange.com.au/threads/brn-discussion-2022.1/post-101499

Hi @Fullmoonfever

Thanks for the reminder and I did read it previously and agree something HAS to be done.

I am not concerned in the least with Brainchip Inc but with the system that promotes this type of inequity while sprouting that everything it is doing is to promote a level playing field for all investors.

If I was a Columbian drug lord I would feel totally protected by the current system but as a normal member of the Australian community and retail shareholder I feel left out when it comes to this idea of a level playing field.

I compensate for this feeling of abandonment by the 'powers that be' by continually doing my own research and ensuring my action plan is up to date. The idea that anyone could invest on the ASX and simply trust or hope is for me the stuff of nightmares.

When you look at the findings of the Banking Royal Commission and most recently the findings about the Crown and Star Casinos and the people involved at the top of these criminal enterprises how is it that anyone could believe in any aspect of Government regulation of the monied end of town in Australia.

Anyway my whole approach from when I started to understand the industry around the ASX in the form of share advice services, financial planners, financial writers, stock forums, Twitter, Facebook & LinkedIn share market gurus, start up promoters, in fact everything from share trolls to share presentations and brokers has led me to this point do not trust anyone until you have done your own independent research and sadly if you for whatever reason do not have the ability or time to constantly engage with your investment then just do not invest in the share market.

When I say do not trust anyone I mean even your own relatives (Melissa Caddick) or members of the same Church or faith (Rene Rivkin).

Just recently I received a letter and a cheque for my son-in-law from Asgard refunding to his late mother's estate personal investment advice fees which they had continued to charge her after her demise for almost four years. This was not an error they had picked up in an audit they had been ordered to make these refunds following the Royal Commission.

My opinion only DYOR
FF

AKIDA BALLISTA

 

[wilzy123]

Hi @Moonshot
The following is the ASIC Guide. Two things to note:
1. The reasons for disclosure
2. The only way to know if a Nominee is holding as a bare trust and entitled to an exemption is to read the fine print of the agreement and speak to the parties about how it operates formally and informally because there is nothing standard about a Nominee agreement.

https://download.asic.gov.au/media/1236706/rg5-published-20-december-2013.pdf

To assist:

“What is a Nominee Company and Why are They Used?​

by Quinns Blog | Oct 12, 2020 | Accounting News, Newsletter Features
A nominee is a person, partnership or company that is entrusted to hold and administer shares or other property as the registered legal owner on behalf of the real owner (beneficial owner). The nominee holds the shares or property on trust and will have their name and details listed on public documentation in place of the beneficial owner who has the effective ownership and control of the shares.

The nominee is the legal owner in name only and the beneficial owner holds an equitable interest in those shares. In brief, an equitable interest is an interest in or right over property, which gives the holder of the right to acquire formal legal title from the person who is registered as the owner (nominee).
A corporate nominee is most frequently used to hold shares on trust on behalf of the beneficial owner. To ensure the beneficial owner retains control over the shares, an agreement between the nominee shareholder and the beneficial owner is executed stating that the shares or property are held on trust by the nominee for the beneficial owner’s benefit and that the nominee’s name and details will be used on documentation. An agreement can also outline specific terms, such as whether the nominee shareholder, as the registered owner of shares, can exercise any control such as voting rights. Express terms dealing with voting rights are often included and in the majority of cases, nominee shareholder does not and would not vote at all unless expressly directed or authorised by the beneficial owner.”

If you decide to read all the above you will realise that according to the ASIC ensuring disclosure is essential to allow shareholders to be properly informed so they can make proper decisions.

This idea is one that I completely agree with particularly when one of the stated reasons for using a Nominee in the above article is to hide your identity.

If this was a legitimate consideration why are all other shareholder details freely available on the share register. Why do we not get to tick a box when we buy shares that stops our name being publicly available.

In any event as all of the above makes clear simply using the term Nominee does not of itself exempt compliance with S. 671B of the Corporations Act.

This being so how can it not be reasonable for ASIC to inform this concerned shareholder after they conclude their investigation of the result.

What impediment would doing so have on the operation of the fair market to inform this concerned shareholder that CitiCorp Nominees is a fair and noble company acting within the letter and spirit of the law? Would not it raise my confidence that the market is being conducted fairly in the interests of all participants?

My opinion only DYOR
FF

AKIDA BALLISTA

Christ. I just read all that and am lost for words. ASX and ASIC sound like they operate on a law unto their own.

 

[wilzy123]

I sometimes wonder if Brainchip may have purchased a third party license for Intels "Lava"

I don't think so.

"Lava is an open-source software framework for developing neuro-inspired applications and mapping them to neuromorphic hardware."

"All of Lava’s core APIs and higher-level components are released, by default, with permissive BSD 3 licenses in order to encourage the broadest possible community contribution."

https://lava-nc.org/

"The BSD 3-clause license allows you almost unlimited freedom with the software so long as you include the BSD copyright and license notice in it (found in Fulltext)."

BSD 3-Clause License (Revised) Explained in Plain English - TLDRLegal

BSD 3-Clause License (Revised) summarized/explained in plain English.

tldrlegal.com

 

[Xray1]

I don't think so.

"Lava is an open-source software framework for developing neuro-inspired applications and mapping them to neuromorphic hardware."

"All of Lava’s core APIs and higher-level components are released, by default, with permissive BSD 3 licenses in order to encourage the broadest possible community contribution."

https://lava-nc.org/

"The BSD 3-clause license allows you almost unlimited freedom with the software so long as you include the BSD copyright and license notice in it (found in Fulltext)."

BSD 3-Clause License (Revised) Explained in Plain English - TLDRLegal

BSD 3-Clause License (Revised) summarized/explained in plain English.

tldrlegal.com

So what Third Party License do you think BRN purchased and from whom ???

 

[Schwale]

What’s happening, is there an inquiry into BRN? It doesn’t appear to be trading??

Market closed due to public holiday. Queens passing

 

[Sirod69]

22.09.2022 | 05:58
MODERNA, BRAINCHIP HOLDINGS, INFINEON – AND THE WINNER IS?

For many years, the management consultancy Boston Consulting Group (BCG) has chosen the 50 most innovative companies in the world. A few days ago the hit list was published for the 16th time. The first places are occupied by Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Tesla. German companies are found only with Siemens from 20th place. Innovations play an important role for investors because they enable competitive advantages, which sooner or later is reflected in rising prices. But it doesn't always have to be global corporations, it's often lucrative to take a look at the second tier.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:
MODERN – AT THE END?
BRAINCHIP HOLDINGS - UNIQUE
INFINEON – BETTER THAN THE COMPETITION

BRAINCHIP HOLDINGS - UNIQUE
The Australians are the world's first commercial manufacturer of neuromorphic AI hardware. The processor called "Akida" is characterized by extremely low power consumption, high performance and the combination of neuromorphic design principles and modern machine learning algorithms. Using a neuromorphic architecture, a type of artificial intelligence inspired by the biology of the human brain, makes all the difference.

Experts rate this as the most efficient solution ever produced. The property of independent learning in particular opens up many fields of application that will be important in the future - the Internet of Things, autonomous driving or robotics are among them. The company is still working in the red, but commercial production continues to pick up speed, the mass market is the next milestone.

BrainChip recently shone by being included in the AI partner program of the global semiconductor giant ARM. The ecosystem of hardware and software specialists, which should enable developers to develop the next generation of AI solutions, forms another building block in the market penetration. The company is currently valued at the equivalent of EUR 1 billion. Analysts see great potential and expect the share to achieve another upside of 83% on average.

Moderna, BrainChip Holdings, Infineon – And the winner is?

Seit vielen Jahren kürt die Unternehmensberatung Boston Consulting Group (BCG) die 50 innovativsten Unternehmen der Welt. Vor wenigen Tagen wurde zum 16. Mal die Hitliste veröffentlicht. Die ersten Ränge belegen Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet und Tesla. Deutsche Gesellschaften finden sich...

www.inv3st.de

 

[Stable Genius]

On another matter the Fed raised rates by the predicted .75% however put an unexpected sting in the tail by lifting their predicted upper target range by close to 1%.

As this sunk in the positive movement on the US markets faded away. Luckily we have a public holiday here so the US markets get a second chance at giving a positive signal to the ASX to close out our week.

Puto continues to weigh on the world but I cannot but have sympathy for the 300,000 Russians being called up. Assuming the reports we have had about the age and quality of the weapons and body armour being used by the troops already in Ukraine it is hard to believe Puto’s statement that they have plenty of weapons ready to use. I personally expect these 300,000 reservists to be virtually naked from a military perspective, poorly trained, lacking leadership and will be nothing more than cannon fodder. So many will die needlessly unless Russia comes to its senses and reigns in Puto.

To believe otherwise is to believe that the regular troops sent to Ukraine at the beginning were given all the old out of date equipment and the modern weaponry was held in reserve for the untrained reservists to use.

Anyway the point is this 300,000 will not in my opinion cause a quick resolution of the war and it is more likely to be ongoing into 2023 and continue to weigh heavily on the worlds markets.

The disclosure that the Australian Government has an extra $50 billion in revenue as a result of Puto creating demand for our resources and increasing world prices is as I predicted.

We will likely see that demand continue into 2023 despite Government claims to the contrary so an extra $50 billion plus will also flow over the next 6 months.

Remember Brainchip has no debt and none of the above have changed a single thing about the Brainchip investment thesis.

EXCEPT that intelligent drones are proving essential in modern warfare. Sadly Brainchip has a way to make drones incredible.

My opinion only DYOR
FF

AKIDA BALLISTA

Not Brainchip related:

A while ago I briefly posted (then deleted) that a mate of mine was in Kiev as an instructor; teaching combat first aid etc for the combatant. For those that read it and were wondering; I spoke to him the other day. He’s in good spirits but as expected it’s been emotionally draining for him. He was hearing about those who he personally trained and briefly became friends with over the last few months who have been killed or injured.

“Winter is coming” which putting it lightly is going to bring more challenges to the Ukrainian people who are already doing it tough.

He deliberately chose not to go to the main combat zones himself and as a Medic he was in a non-combat role. He’s seen enough previously and will always carry the mental scars from other conflict zones he’s been to. He’s on his way back now as he has commitments in Australia he has to meet.

On leaving he gave away his body armour and expensive medical kit he brought over from Australia to those who will need it more. He paid his own way and although he was offered a paid role he declined that and did it as a volunteer. He doesn’t think he’s done anything special and he’s still wondering if he could have done more to help the many innocents who truly need help from this evil atrocity.

Just posting this to reassure those who care; that he’s survived. And despite all the negative press floating around there are some good people out there trying to make a difference.

We’ve all invested in Brainchip to become wealthy to make our lives better. In the end once we reach a certain level of wealth; money can only do so much. We can also enrich our lives through quality relationships and community spirit!

Cheers

 

[Fact Finder]

Interesting article on Drone adoption:

How drone autonomy unlocks a new era of AI opportunities

Autonomous drone technology lets us digitize and analyze the physical world, observing and improving our world’s critical infrastructure.

venturebeat.com

My opinion only DYOR
FF

AKIDA BALLISTA

 

[JoMo68]

I love his second qualification ‘Story teller.’ Says it all really.

Feed forward is a clue or his absence of any knowledge about it together with his lack of understanding that the STDP used by Brainchip incorporates the JAST learning rules which are patent protected and as such the others he references would be using them illegally or on licence from Brainchip.

A story by Gordon Wilson aged 31 years.
Teachers comment: Could do better.

My opinion only DYOR
FF

AKIDA BALLISTA

I’m trying to get my head around the ‘Frontiers in Neuroscience’ article posted by someone last night - the updated article by Russian authors. My primitive read of the comparison of Akida with other neuromorphic chips was that we weren’t hugely different (like I said though, I don’t really understand the nitty gritty). Anyone else have any insights?