BRN Discussion Ongoing

[JDelekto]

I have noticed that several other people have mentioned voting before the AGM. As an investor in the US, I hold shares of the BCHPY ADR (a very insignificant amount) and OTC-traded BRCHF in my Fidelity Investment accounts. I assume that for my holding of BRCHF, I should be allowed to vote.

While I get the occasional marketing e-mails from BrainChip and Rob Telson, I have not received anything about the information I need to be able to log in and vote online. Additionally, there are no proxy materials provided from my Fidelity account.

While I have sent an e-mail to Tony Dawe to inquire about this, can anyone think of a reason that would exclude me from voting? Is it because I am an overseas retail investor? Could it be that the number of shares I hold is not enough to reach a certain threshold? Maybe there is information that BrainChip needs to provide to Fidelity?

I understand that I have no voting rights for the BCHPY ADRs because the actual shares are owned by the bank that issues them, but I believe that with BRCHF, I own the share.

You'll have to excuse my ignorance on this one. I've never voted for any of my investments in the past, mainly because I've never really owned a single stock, only mutual funds.

 

[manny100]

“He says that the Renasas chip will be ready for release in the coming months. It's easy for holders to assume these will sell like hotcakes.”
While I hope this is the case, they may not sell.

Fairly certain that Renesas would have back orders for these chips, particularly if they are for the automobile industry. Renesas sell a lot into auto industry. If this is the case then when they are mass produced Renesas would be paying BrainChip the associated royalties.

Agree, Renesas run a serious businesses and would not produce chips without certainty of sale. Very likely we will see Royalties later this year appear in the financials.

 

[FlipDollar]

Im

I have noticed that several other people have mentioned voting before the AGM. As an investor in the US, I hold shares of the BCHPY ADR (a very insignificant amount) and OTC-traded BRCHF in my Fidelity Investment accounts. I assume that for my holding of BRCHF, I should be allowed to vote.

While I get the occasional marketing e-mails from BrainChip and Rob Telson, I have not received anything about the information I need to be able to log in and vote online. Additionally, there are no proxy materials provided from my Fidelity account.

While I have sent an e-mail to Tony Dawe to inquire about this, can anyone think of a reason that would exclude me from voting? Is it because I am an overseas retail investor? Could it be that the number of shares I hold is not enough to reach a certain threshold? Maybe there is information that BrainChip needs to provide to Fidelity?

I understand that I have no voting rights for the BCHPY ADRs because the actual shares are owned by the bank that issues them, but I believe that with BRCHF, I own the share.

You'll have to excuse my ignorance on this one. I've never voted for any of my investments in the past, mainly because I've never really owned a single stock, only mutual funds.

I’m in this exact position - no contact re voting

 

[zeeb0t]

"especially since the AI can also see the rationale"

From the limited examples of what I've seen, of ChatGPT's "work" it has a "Please the author" slant, to its programming, not a "find the error in the argument" one.

I had a post reported (which I queried you about privately and was not seen or ignored) that asked why my post was moderated.

Dreddbot's reasoning, was that it was a personal attack and yet it was not a reply to someone, nor was any particular person mentioned, or even alluded to in the post.

How did Dreadbot come to that conclusion, without being "persuaded"?

Using A.I. that has been programmed as a "Please the human" language model, may not be an accurate squeeze into, what should be completely impartial.

That said, even the straightest cops, will turn a blind eye to something, if a response isn't warranted, based on knowledge or a perception of the individual's "real" character.

A World where there is complete impartiality and there is no feeling or compassion at all, from authority, is probably the most sad and coldest.

Maybe we are already there ..

Two things…. First, I rely on numerous folks here to report, before it acts, to enact a “turn the blind eye” protocol you describe. The AI does not need to do this, because the community decided for it. Second, your “please the author” statement is not entirely true. It does want to please the author, and so it is up to the author to ensure the AI knows what it is going to take to please it.

Simply, I prompted the AI to judge the rules in strict adherence only because the human element has prevailed.

If you feel like the AI should have let it go, your question is really one for the numerous people who reported it first.

 

[Andi85]

I didnt receive anything so i logined on Boardroom and i can vote from there. If you haven't registered with them then they will send an activation mail to your address.

 

[Townyj]

It's cunning how they have lumped executive directors together so that a vote for Peter means a vote for Sean (2.2 million shares). I'd personally prefer to see these separated , but since they are lumped together, it will be a no vote from me.

View attachment 34735

If you log in online to vote. Both Sean and Peter are separate.

Ive cast my vote and had my say.. i recommend everyone do the same.

 

[zeeb0t]

Two things…. First, I rely on numerous folks here to report, before it acts, to enact a “turn the blind eye” protocol you describe. The AI does not need to do this, because the community decided for it. Second, your “please the author” statement is not entirely true. It does want to please the author, and so it is up to the author to ensure the AI knows what it is going to take to please it.

Simply, I prompted the AI to judge the rules in strict adherence only because the human element has prevailed.

If you feel like the AI should have let it go, your question is really one for the numerous people who reported it first.

And for what it’s worth - approximately one third of all reports has resolved in the AI deciding the post was in fact in accordance with rules, despite the reports.

 

[Bravo]

"especially since the AI can also see the rationale"

From the limited examples of what I've seen, of ChatGPT's "work" it has a "Please the author" slant, to its programming, not a "find the error in the argument" one.

I had a post reported (which I queried you about privately and was not seen or ignored) that asked why my post was moderated.

Dreddbot's reasoning, was that it was a personal attack and yet it was not a reply to someone, nor was any particular person mentioned, or even alluded to in the post.

How did Dreadbot come to that conclusion, without being "persuaded"?

Using A.I. that has been programmed as a "Please the human" language model, may not be an accurate squeeze into, what should be completely impartial.

That said, even the straightest cops, will turn a blind eye to something, if a response isn't warranted, based on knowledge or a perception of the individual's "real" character.

A World where there is complete impartiality and there is no feeling or compassion at all, from authority, is probably the most sad and coldest.

Maybe we are already there ..

If I may be permitted to chime in here, I don't know if Dreddbott is ever going to make into the Comedy Festival line-up because he doesn't appear to have a very good sense of humour.

It said that I was flaming and baiting when I said "Whoops, forgive me, I must have missed the memo that told us this forum is actually the BrainChip complaints department".

And in another example, it reasoned that "carrying on like a pork chop" was a personal insult and the use of "whinge" could be considered a profanity.

If we can't use sarcasm as an expression of humour then I am definitely going to wind up a permanent fixture in the naughty corner.

And yes, I agree with your sentiment @Borat. I think that it has the potential to lead to a cold and clinical "vibe" which would be a shame. We should be allowed to have a bit of fun because that's part of this forum's charm IMO.

 

[zeeb0t]

Two things…. First, I rely on numerous folks here to report, before it acts, to enact a “turn the blind eye” protocol you describe. The AI does not need to do this, because the community decided for it. Second, your “please the author” statement is not entirely true. It does want to please the author, and so it is up to the author to ensure the AI knows what it is going to take to please it.

Simply, I prompted the AI to judge the rules in strict adherence only because the human element has prevailed.

If you feel like the AI should have let it go, your question is really one for the numerous people who reported it first.

Maybe I should phrase it like this: the community is the “cop” and the AI is the “judge”.

 

[zeeb0t]

If I may be permitted to chime in here, I don't know if Dreddbott is ever going to make into the Comedy Festival line-up because he doesn't appear to have a very good sense of humour.

It said that I was flaming and baiting when I said "Whoops, forgive me, I must have missed the memo that told us this forum is actually the BrainChip complaints department".

And in another example, it reasoned that "carrying on like a pork chop" was a personal insult and the use of "whinge" could be considered a profanity.

If we can't use sarcasm as an expression of humour then I am definitely going to wind up a permanent fixture in the naughty corner.

And yes, I agree with your sentiment @Borat. I think that it has the potential to lead to a cold and clinical "vibe" which would be a shame because we should be allowed to have a bit of fun because that's part of this forum's charm IMO.

Your complaint then is with the numerous community members who felt otherwise.

 

[DingoBorat]

Two things…. First, I rely on numerous folks here to report, before it acts, to enact a “turn the blind eye” protocol you describe. The AI does not need to do this, because the community decided for it. Second, your “please the author” statement is not entirely true. It does want to please the author, and so it is up to the author to ensure the AI knows what it is going to take to please it.

Simply, I prompted the AI to judge the rules in strict adherence only because the human element has prevailed.

If you feel like the AI should have let it go, your question is really one for the numerous people who reported it first.

That would be the soft serves, right ..

 

[zeeb0t]

That would be the soft serves, right ..

The AI does not decide the human element. Your numerous peers did that when reporting.

In short; your concern is misdirected as is others here. Blaming the technology when it was 5+ peers who sent it that way is really where your argument lies imo.

 

[Bravo]

Your complaint then is with the numerous community members who felt otherwise.

But since when did "whinge" become a profanity? Also I happen to really like pork chops!

Plus who doesn't think "Whoops, forgive me, I must have missed the memo that told us this forum is actually the BrainChip complaints department" was funny?

 

[zeeb0t]

Anyway can we please refrain from derailing this forum anymore than we have? I’m happy to take it to messages if you’d like to discuss the concepts further.

 

[zeeb0t]

But since when did "whinge" become a profanity? Also I happen to really like pork chops!

Plus who doesn't think "Whoops, forgive me, I must have missed the memo that told us this forum is actually the BrainChip complaints department" was funny?

Take it to message mate. No more derailing BRN, we’ve given it enough airtime here. But simply, your peers didn’t agree. What can I say?

 

[JDelekto]

I didnt receive anything so i logined on Boardroom and i can vote from there. If you haven't registered with them then they will send an activation mail to your address.

I did try going there, and used the correct country, what I appear to be missing the Voter Access Code (VAC):

I am not sure where to get this? Is this issued by the company?

 

[Schnitzel lover]

Well I just completed the on-line voting for the AGM, and surprised myself. I am a huge fan of PVdM and AM and what they have done to bring their vision to reality. So I voted for PVdM's performance rights. What he has achieved is tangible and visible.

As for the other performance rights and restricted stock units, I voted against them all. Why I hear you ask? Don't we need to issue these to preserve cash and still attract top quality people? My answer is a definite yes, with the BIG qualification that I need to have visibility of what the KPI's are so I can understand the value that the recipients have brought and are being rewarded for.

I was a senior exec in the IT industry for many years (Asia Pac MD of a Silicon Valley based software company) and am very conversant with, and a big supporter of, incentive schemes. However, the lack of information and transparency on display here means that I cannot, in all good conscience, vote for something I don't understand. NDA's and so forth notwithstanding, the directors will need to do much better at allowing me to understand the proposals before they get my vote.

My opinion only and DYOR before making up your mind.

Arent they 2026 vesting?

Makes it harder to vote in that regard with what may transpire the 3years in between..

I decided to vote in favour as I think if 3 years passes I’m happy to give the benefit of the doubt until then..

 

[Onboard21]

I did try going there, and used the correct country, what I appear to be missing the Voter Access Code (VAC):

View attachment 34740
I am not sure where to get this? Is this issued by the company?

yes, I received mine in an email

 

[Diogenese]

Take it to message mate. No more derailing BRN, we’ve given it enough airtime here. But simply, your peers didn’t agree. What can I say?

You could say "A minority of your peers don't agree."

 

[Schnitzel lover]

I have noticed that several other people have mentioned voting before the AGM. As an investor in the US, I hold shares of the BCHPY ADR (a very insignificant amount) and OTC-traded BRCHF in my Fidelity Investment accounts. I assume that for my holding of BRCHF, I should be allowed to vote.

While I get the occasional marketing e-mails from BrainChip and Rob Telson, I have not received anything about the information I need to be able to log in and vote online. Additionally, there are no proxy materials provided from my Fidelity account.

While I have sent an e-mail to Tony Dawe to inquire about this, can anyone think of a reason that would exclude me from voting? Is it because I am an overseas retail investor? Could it be that the number of shares I hold is not enough to reach a certain threshold? Maybe there is information that BrainChip needs to provide to Fidelity?

I understand that I have no voting rights for the BCHPY ADRs because the actual shares are owned by the bank that issues them, but I believe that with BRCHF, I own the share.

You'll have to excuse my ignorance on this one. I've never voted for any of my investments in the past, mainly because I've never really owned a single stock, only mutual funds.

Yes I think it’s an ASX thing.. Eg when they release Announcements they say not for distribution in other countries.. I assume it’s the same for voting rights at the AGM..

It’s probably to do with where your shares are held. If they are not directly held via the ASX then you don’t have any voting rights until or unless the listing changes to a dual listing (Nasdaq).

AIMO I think that’s what is occurring here